The Covenant

The District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility rejected a jurisdictional challenge and recommends disbarment of an attorney

Respondent contends that the Maryland charges should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; that all withdrawals of client funds were either earned or authorized; and that Respondent was not required to file fee petitions. Respondent also argues that the Board should consider his long struggle with cancer as a mitigating factor. But, as his counsel confirmed at oral argument, he does not take exception to the Hearing Committees finding that he failed to carry his burden under In re Kersey, 520 A.2d 321 (D.C. 1987), of proving that his disability should overcome the presumptive sanction of disbarment for intentional misappropriation. He contends that, if the Board finds any Rule violations, a non-suspensory sanction would be appropriate.

The Hearing Committee recommended that we deny Respondents Motion to Dismiss the Maryland charges for lack of jurisdiction. We agree. Rule of Professional Conduct 8.5(a) makes clear that the disciplinary authority of the D.C. Court of Appeals extends to all members of the Bar, regardless of where the lawyers conduct occurs, and regardless of whether courts in other jurisdictions share disciplinary authority over the lawyer for the same conduct. See also In re O Neill, 276 A.3d 492, 499 (D.C. 2022) (The D.C. Bars jurisdiction arises from consensual covenant, not geographic location. ). As the Hearing Committee explained, the Court regularly disciplines members of the Bar for violating another jurisdictions rules. See HC Rpt. at 30 (first citing In re Johnson, 158 A.3d 913, 915 n.1 (D.C. 2017) (A lawyer admitted to our bar may be disciplined here for conduct occurring in another jurisdiction, and in appropriate cases, as here, subject to 2discipline here based on the ethics rules of the other jurisdiction. ); and then citing In re Tun, 286 A.3d 538, 540 & n.1 (D.C. 2022) (disbarring the respondent for violations of Maryland Rules 19-303.3(a)(1) and 19-308.4(b), (c), and (d))). Therefore, Respondents Motion to Dismiss is denied.

For the reasons set forth in the Hearing Committees Report and Recommendation, which is attached hereto and adopted and incorporated by reference, the Board finds that Respondent violated D.C. Rules 1.15(a) (Counts I, II, V, and VIII), 1.5(a) (Count V), and 8.4(c) (Count IX), as well as Maryland Rules 19-301.15(a) (Counts III, IV, VI, and VII), 19-301.1 (Count III), 19-301.5(a) (Counts III, IV, and VII), 19-308.4(c) (III, IV, and VII), and 19-308.4(d) (III, IV, and VII). Additionally, the Board agrees with the Hearing Committee that Respondent has not demonstrated any extraordinary mitigating circumstances that would overcome the presumptive sanction of disbarment for intentional misappropriation under Addams.

(Mike Frisch)