Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the 

Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound 

volumes go to press. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 17-BG-768

IN RE CAROLYN MARDIS, RESPONDENT.

A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

(Bar Registration No. 974417)

On Report and Recommendation

Of the Board on Professional Responsibility

(DDN 540-09 & DDN 557-09)

(Decided December 14, 2017)

Before FISHER and EASTERLY, Associate Judges, and NEBEKER, Senior 

Judge.

PER CURIAM: In this case, the Board on Professional Responsibility has 

adopted Hearing Committee Four’s uncontested findings that respondent Carolyn 

Mardis violated the Rules of Professional Conduct in two separate unrelated 

matters that were consolidated for resolution. In the first matter, the Board 

accepted the Committee’s findings that Ms. Mardis (1) conspired with others in a 

fraudulent scheme to unlawfully obtain the title to a property that was subject to a 
2

tax sale and thereafter took possession of the owner’s personal property; (2) when 

contacted by the owner, provided a false name, demanded payment as a condition 

for returning the property, and transferred some of the property to an auction house

for sale; and (3) made misrepresentations to her law firm in an attempt to hide her 

actions and falsely testified under oath after she was sued by the owner of the 

property. In the second matter, the Board accepted the undisputed findings of the 

Committee that Ms. Mardis failed to inform a client of her fee or the scope of her 

representation and then commingled the advance fee without her client’s consent. 

In determining the appropriate sanction, the Board accepted the Committee’s 

rejection of Ms. Mardis’s proffer of mitigating evidence pursuant to In re Kersey, 

520 A.2d 321 (D.C. 1987). 

In light of this record, the Board recommends that this court determine that 

Ms. Mardis violated District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5 (b), 

1.15 (a), 1.7 (b)(4), 3.3 (a), 8.1 (a), 8.4 (b), 8.4 (c) and 8.4 (d). The Board further 

recommends that Ms. Mardis be disbarred from the practice of law. Neither Ms. 

Mardis nor Disciplinary Counsel has filed an exception to the Board’s Report and 

Recommendations. 
3

Under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9 (h)(2), “if no exceptions are filed to the Board’s 

report, the [c]ourt will enter an order imposing the discipline recommended by the 

Board upon the expiration of the time permitted for filing exceptions.” See also In 

re Viehe, 762 A.2d 542, 543 (D.C. 2000) (“When . . . there are no exceptions to the 

Board’s report and recommendation, our deferential standard of review becomes 

even more deferential.”). We discern no reason to depart from the Board’s 

recommendations, particularly in light of the Board’s findings that Ms. Mardis 

engaged in fraud, committed theft, and then proffered perjured testimony. These 

findings justify the discipline recommended by the Board. See, e.g., In re Coles,

912 A.2d 1168 (D.C. 2006) (disbarment for fraud); In re Tillerson, 878 A.2d 1186 

(D.C. 2005) (disbarment for first-degree theft).

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Carolyn Mardis is hereby disbarred from the practice of law 

in the District of Columbia. For the purposes of reinstatement Ms. Mardis’s period 

of disbarment will not begin to run until such time as she files an affidavit that 

fully complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g).
4

So ordered.