Case ID: a2d_609/html/0280-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "NEWMAN, Senior Judge:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re Wayne T. ARCENEAUX, Respondent. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
    No. 91-SP-560.
    District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
    Submitted June 3, 1992.
    Decided June 16, 1992.
    Before SCHWELB and FARRELL, Associate Judges, and NEWMAN, Senior Judge.
   NEWMAN, Senior Judge:

Bar Counsel urges that we reject the recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility in this reciprocal discipline case. We accept the findings and recommendation of the Board and impose the discipline it recommends.

Arceneaux is a member of the Bar of this court and of Texas. According to his affidavit filed with the Board, he has not practiced law in the District of Columbia since his admission here in 1985. While representing a client in the Bankruptcy Division of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Arceneaux ran afoul of Rule 9011, United States Bankruptcy Rules, and Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As a consequence, the Bankruptcy Court imposed sanctions against Ar-ceneaux, his client, and his co-counsel.

Disciplinary proceedings in the state District Court of Dallas County, Texas resulted in an agreed-to finding that Arceneaux’s conduct violated Disciplinary Rule 7-102(A)(2) (knowingly advancing a claim that was unwarranted under existing law). Pursuant to the agreement, Arceneaux was suspended from the practice of law for three months; the suspension was stayed and he was placed on probation for twelve months.

The Board recommends that Arceneaux be suspended for three months without probation and that the suspension be nunc pro tunc to the commencement of his probated suspension in Texas on October 22, 1990. See In re Goldberg, 460 A.2d 982 (D.C.1983). Bar Counsel objects to this recommendation and urges that we impose the identical discipline that Texas did, i.e., that we probate the sentence for twelve months. We see no useful purpose to be served by imposing a term of probation, particularly in light of Arceneaux’s having already completed his Texas probation. See In re Bradbury, 608 A.2d 1218 (D.C. 1992). We therefore have no occasion to consider Bar Counsel’s suggestion that the Board has construed too narrowly the availability of probation as a sanction, at least in reciprocal discipline cases.

Arceneaux is suspended from the practice of law for ninety days, effective October 22, 1990.

So ordered. 
      
      . The Texas court imposed the following conditions of probation: (1) Respondent not violate the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct; (2) Respondent not be convicted of any felony involving moral turpitude or any misdemeanor involving theft, embezzlement or fraudulent misappropriation of money or other property; (3) Respondent must notify the Texas Bar of any change of address; and (4) Respondent must respond to any written request for information from the Texas Bar. The probation was successfully terminated on October 21, 1991.