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. 13-BG-1401

IN RE YOSHIHIRO SAITO, RESPONDENT.

A Member of the Bar

of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

(Bar Registration No. 351973)

On Report and Recommendation of Hearing Committee Number Eight

Approving Petition for Negotiated Discipline 

(BDN D388-03)

(Decided May 8, 2014)

This decision is issued as non-precedential. Please refer to D.C. Bar R. XI, 

§ 12.1 (d) governing the appropriate citation of this opinion.

Before BLACKBURNE-RIGSBY and BECKWITH, Associate Judges, and KING, 

Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM: In this disciplinary matter, Hearing Committee Number Eight 

(“Committee”) recommends approval of a petition for negotiated attorney 

discipline. See D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 12.1. Respondent, Yoshihiro Saito, admits to 

violating District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4 (c) (“engag[ing] 

in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation”). This 

violation stems from his representation of an international client and submission of 

a questionnaire to the United States Department of Commerce. Specifically, 
2

respondent failed to disclose significant alterations to a sales contract, which he 

acknowledged the Department of Commerce would view as material facts and the 

lack of disclosure tainted the original decision issued in that matter. Respondent 

and Bar Counsel have negotiated a one-year suspension based upon the failure to 

disclose material facts. 

Respondent’s admissions were made voluntarily, with the advice of counsel, 

and in connection with a petition for negotiated discipline filed by Bar Counsel on

January 2, 2013.

1

 The matter was referred to Hearing Committee Number Eight, 

where respondent admitted to both the stipulated facts contained in the petition and 

his own supporting affidavit, and admitted that his actions constituted violations of 

the aforementioned Rule of Professional Conduct. In addition, respondent 

consented to the sanction agreed upon with Bar Counsel. Respondent confirmed 

that he was entering into the disposition freely and voluntarily and not as the result 

of any coercion or duress.

2

 The Committee concluded, after a limited hearing on 

the petition, conducting two separate in camera reviews of Bar Counsel’s 

 

1

See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1 (c); Bd. Prof. Resp. R. 17.5.

2

Id.
3

investigative files and records, and two ex parte meetings with Assistant Bar 

Counsel, that respondent violated Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4 (c).

We agree with the Committee’s recommendation because it properly applied 

D.C. Bar XI 12.1 (c) to arrive at this conclusion and we find no error in the 

Committee’s determination. Furthermore, the Committee considered the 

aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the disciplinary events including Bar 

Counsel’s concession that “it was less than diligent” in investigating this case, and 

the fact that respondent had no prior or subsequent disciplinary history and found 

that the negotiated discipline – a one-year suspension – was not unduly lenient and 

falls within the range of discipline imposed for similar actions.3

 

3

See In re Belardi, 891 A.2d 224 (D.C. 2006) (imposing a one-year 

suspension following respondent’s guilty plea to three counts of making false 

statements to the Federal Communications Commission); In re Cerroni, 683 A.2d 

150 (D.C. 1996) (following a finding that conduct did not amount to moral 

turpitude per se, court suspended respondent for one year for knowingly making 

false statements and reports to the United States Department of Housing and Urban 

Development and the Federal Housing Administration.); In re Thompson, 538 A.2d 

247 (D.C. 1987) (imposing a one-year suspension upon the respondent for 

knowingly assisting in the presentation of false statements to the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service).
4

In accordance with our procedures in uncontested disciplinary cases, we 

agree that this case is appropriate for negotiated discipline, and we accept the 

Committee’s recommendation. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Yoshihiro Saito is suspended from the practice of law in the

District of Columbia for the period of one year. We direct respondent’s attention

to the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) and its effect on his eligibility for 

reinstatement. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16 (c).

So ordered.