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-488

IN RE DARRELL N. FULLER, RESPONDENT.

A Member of the Bar

of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

(Bar Registration No. 499204)

On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional 

Responsibility Ad Hoc Hearing Committee

Approving Petition for Negotiated Discipline 

(BDN 008-16)

(Decided: November 9, 2017)

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

Judge.

Opinion for the court PER CURIAM. 

Dissenting opinion by Senior Judge NEBEKER at page 5.

PER CURIAM: This decision is non-precedential.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 Ad Hoc Hearing Committee (the Committee) 

recommends approval of the petition for negotiated attorney discipline. The 

11/09/2017
2

violation stems from respondent Darrell N. Fuller’s professional misconduct 

wherein he used his work-issued phone to take lewd photographs and videos of 

clothed, unaware, and nonconsenting individuals and then stored those images on 

his work computer. 

Respondent acknowledged that he engaged in deceitful conduct and violated 

Rule 8.4 (c) of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct. In 

mitigation, the Committee considered the fact that respondent (1) cooperated with 

Bar Counsel; (2) had been diagnosed with Voyeuristic Disorder (in remission); (3) 

voluntarily consented to an independent medical examination that resulted in a 

determination that he posed a low risk of recidivism for the conduct described; (4) 

promptly reported his guilty plea and acknowledged his misconduct from the 

outset of Disciplinary Counsel’s investigation; (5) already served a suspension 

lasting over one year; (6) immediately sought treatment upon his arrest;1(7) 

demonstrated remorse for his actions; and (8) had no prior history of discipline in 

any jurisdiction. As a result, Disciplinary Counsel and respondent negotiated the 

 

1

 Initially, respondent pled guilty to violating a Texas statute for improper 

photography or visual recording and the District Court of Harris County, Texas,

deferred any adjudication of guilt for five years and placed him on community 

supervision. Respondent obtained an order dismissing the indictment against him, 

however, after the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas struck down as 

unconstitutional the subsection of the statute under which respondent was charged. 

See Ex parte Thompson, 442 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
3

imposition of discipline in the form of a two-year suspension, stayed, and two 

years of unsupervised probation during which respondent must (1) submit monthly 

reports to Disciplinary Counsel self-certifying his compliance with the treatment 

directions of his psychiatrist and other providers; (2) submit monthly reports to 

Disciplinary Counsel self-certifying that he attended at least one Sex Addicts 

Anonymous meeting in that month period; (3) immediately seek counseling from a 

Certified Sex Addiction Therapist should his treatment regimen appear 

insufficient; (4) waive privilege, to the extent necessary, for Disciplinary Counsel 

to verify his compliance with the terms of his probation; and (5) not engage in any 

misconduct in this or any jurisdiction. Additionally, if Disciplinary Counsel has 

probable cause to believe respondent violated the terms of the probation, it may 

seek to revoke respondent’s probation pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 3 and D.C 

Board R. 18.3 and request that respondent serve the two-year suspension 

consecutive to any other discipline or suspension that may be imposed. Further, a 

showing of fitness will be required before he is allowed to resume the practice of 

law. 

 After reviewing the petition for negotiated discipline, considering a 

supporting affidavit, conducting a limited hearing, reviewing Disciplinary 

Counsel’s files and records, and holding an ex parte meeting with Disciplinary 

Counsel, the Committee concluded that the petition for negotiated discipline 
4

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 two-year suspension, stayed, and two years of unsupervised probation with 

conditions is not unduly lenient considering the existence of extensive mitigating 

factors.

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 Darrell N. Fuller is hereby suspended from the practice of 

law in the District of Columbia for two years, stayed, and two years of 

unsupervised probation during which respondent must (1) submit monthly reports 

to Disciplinary Counsel self-certifying his compliance with the treatment directions 

of his psychiatrist and other providers; (2) submit monthly reports to Disciplinary 

Counsel self-certifying that he attended at least one Sex Addicts Anonymous 

meeting in that month period; (3) immediately seek counseling from a Certified 

Sex Addiction Therapist should his treatment regimen appear insufficient; (4) 
5

waive privilege, to the extent necessary, for Disciplinary Counsel to verify his 

compliance with the terms of his probation; and (5) not engage in any misconduct 

in this or any jurisdiction. Should respondent violate the terms of his probation, he 

will be suspended with reinstatement conditioned on demonstrating his fitness to 

practice law. 

So ordered.

NEBEKER, Senior Judge, dissenting. I would reject the request for approval 

of the petition for negotiated attorney discipline. I believe the conditions of 

respondent’s probation should require his psychiatrist to submit monthly reports to 

Disciplinary Counsel verifying his compliance with treatment directions and 

expressing an opinion on his risk of recidivism.