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. 16-BG-661

IN RE ANTOINI M.JONES, RESPONDENT.

A Member of the Bar

of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

(Bar Registration No. 428159)

On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional

Responsibility Hearing Committee Number Seven

Approving Petition for Negotiated Discipline 

(BDN D311-10 & D103-11)

(Decided: August 25, 2016)

Before BECKWITH and MCLEESE, Associate Judges, and FARRELL, Senior 

Judge.

PER CURIAM: This decision is non-precedential. Please refer to D.C. Bar R. 

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

In this disciplinary matter, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board 

on Professional Responsibility Hearing Committee Number Seven (“the 

Committee”) recommends approval of a revised petition for negotiated attorney 

discipline. The violations stem from respondent Antoini M. Jones’s professional 

8/25/16
2

misconduct arising from his representation of two clients in two separate civil 

actions. 

Respondent acknowledged that he failed to (1) provide competent 

representation; (2) act with reasonable promptness; and (3) communicate with his 

clients, thereby violating Rules 1.1 (a) & (b), 1.3 (c), and 1.4 (a) of the District of 

Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct. The Committee considered the 

following circumstances in mitigation: (1) respondent cooperated with Bar 

Counsel; (2) respondent took full responsibility and demonstrated remorse for his 

actions; (3) respondent’s family situation; and (4) one client’s personal conduct 

affected respondent’s ability to represent that client. The Committee also reviewed 

respondent’s four previous informal admonitions, two of which involved 

misconduct sounding in neglect. As a result, Disciplinary Counsel and respondent 

negotiated the imposition of discipline in the form of a ninety-day suspension, 

stayed, and one year of probation during which respondent must (1) meet with and 

obtain an assessment from the District of Columbia Bar’s Practice Management 

Advisory Service (“PMAS”) and comply with and implement any PMAS 

recommendation, including the supervision of a practice monitor; (2) not be found 

to have engaged in any additional ethical misconduct; and (3) complete his 

financial obligations to one complainant. After reviewing the revised petition for 
3

negotiated discipline, considering a supporting affidavit and an unsworn letter from 

one of the complainants, and conducting a limited hearing, the Committee 

concluded that the revised petition for negotiated discipline should be approved. 

 We accept the Committee’s recommendation because the Committee 

properly applied D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1 (c), and we find no error in the 

Committee’s determination. Based upon the record before the court, the negotiated 

discipline of a ninety-day suspension from the practice of law, stayed, and one year 

of probation with the conditions set forth above is not unduly lenient considering 

the existence of mitigating factors and the discipline imposed by this court for 

similar actions.1

 

1

See In re Mance, 869 A.2d 339, 341-43 (D.C. 2005) (per curiam) 

(imposing thirty-day suspension, with suspension conditionally stayed during oneyear period of unsupervised probation with requirement that attorney attend six 

hours of continuing legal education courses in legal ethics and law-office 

management, as disciplinary sanction for attorney’s neglect of client’s criminal 

appeal, where attorney had two prior informal admonitions); In re Douglass, 859 

A.2d 1069, 1072-87 (D.C. 2004) (per curiam) (suspending for ninety days attorney 

who had two prior informal admonitions and presented no significant mitigating 

factors, where attorney failed to prepare or pursue client’s case and then attempted 

to prevent client from seeking refund of attorney’s fees after attorney no longer 

represented that client); In re Drew, 693 A.2d 1127, 1127-28 (D.C. 1997) (per 

curiam) (imposing sixty-day suspension on attorney who had three prior informal 

admonitions in similar cases where attorney failed to note appeal for client 

following criminal conviction and failed to note appeal or file motion to modify a 

sentence for another client); In re Knox, 441 A.2d 265, 266-68 (D.C. 1982) 

(continued...)
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 Antoini M. Jones is hereby suspended from the practice of 

law in the District of Columbia for ninety days, stayed in favor of one year of 

probation during which respondent must (1) meet with and obtain an assessment 

from the District of Columbia Bar’s PMAS and comply with and implement any 

PMAS recommendation, including the supervision of a practice monitor; (2) not be 

found to have engaged in any additional ethical misconduct; and (3) complete his 

financial obligations to one complainant. 

So ordered.

 

(...continued)

(imposing ninety-day suspension after attorney failed to take any action before 

statute of limitations expired and did not communicate with client about decision 

not to pursue claim).