No Travesty

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals rejected an effort to avoid reciprocal discipline for an Ohio suspension and has imposed a two-year suspension with fitness

The Ohio disciplinary order identified the individual being disciplined as “Martha V. Yeager (a.k.a. Martha V. Kim),” and respondent does not dispute that Yeager was her maiden name. Respondent’s claim that she was unaware of the Ohio proceedings until 2024 is demonstrably false where she participated in the 2015 Massachusetts reciprocal disciplinary matter that imposed reciprocal discipline based on the Ohio order. She does not establish a lack of notice of the Ohio proceedings where notice was sent to the address listed on her attorney registration as well as two other last known addresses. Respondent does not otherwise describe how the Ohio disciplinary process denied her due process. She also does not identify what procedures were not followed and, in any event, this court’s “responsibility in reciprocal discipline matters is not to sit in appellate review of the foreign disciplinary proceedings, in order to determine whether they conformed in every respect to local procedural and substantive law.” In re Morrissey, 648 A.2d 185, 190 (D.C. 1994) (per curiam). Further, respondent “is not entitled to relitigate or collaterally attack the findings or judgment” of the Ohio proceeding. Zdravkovich, 831 A.2d at 969. Finally, respondent may not escape discipline “by resigning during temporary suspension and prior to this court’s decision.” In re McClure, 144 A.3d 570, 573 (D.C. 2016) (per curiam).

The Ohio sanction involved two misrepresentations and an improper withdrawal from representation

“Martha Kim, attorney for [the defendant-father], hereby resigns because this is a travesty. Let me tell you, a travesty, and I would ask the Court at this point — I move the Court to continue this and give [the defendant] time to find local counsel so that [plaintiff-mother’s counsel] can start any number of motions and review motions for the next 15 years or however old this child is because, truly, I am not here. 

“So I’m not available for the next 15 years, and that’s what this case is all about. It’s about going back even though we resolved custody issues, we’re re-resolving them.

“So I beg the Court to allow [the defendant] time to find new counsel because I cannot handle this case. I cannot be here. I cannot deal with this anymore because it is an absolute travesty, so I have to leave. I have a severe headache, I feel very ill, and I beg the Court to please continue the case.”

Respondent then abruptly left the courtroom, completely deserting her client. The hearing continued without her, and opposing counsel presented evidence of the cost of his time charged to his client in filing responses to respondent’s baseless motions and objections.

According to juvenile court records, respondent has never filed notice of her withdrawal as the father’s attorney. On August 29, 2005, however, she replied to a notice of a hearing that had taken place on August 26 by saying that she had withdrawn from the case on March 4, 2004. The docket does not support this assertion.

(Mike Frisch)