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. 1 3

- BG

- 1 4 3 6
I N R E S TEVEN B. K ELBER , R ESPONDENT
A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 358515 ) On Report and Recommendation of Hearing Committee Number Five

Approving Petition for Negotiated Discipline

(BDN D 522

- 08 ) (Decided: May 1, 201 4 )

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 B LACKBURNE

- R IGSBY and B ECKWITH , Associate Judges , and K ING , Senior Judge

. P ER C URIAM : Respondent, Steven B. Kelber , a member of the Bar of this Court, has admitted to violating District of Columbia Rules of Professional
Conduct 8.4 (c) and (d) by making false statements and undertaking actions that interfered with the administration of justice. After respondent submi tted a petition2

for negotiated discipline, Hearing Committee Number Five ( “Committee”) issued
its Report and Recommendation approv ing respondent’s petition. See D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 12.1. The Committee concluded, after a limited hearing on the petition,
review ing a supporting amended affidavit from respondent, considering the representations of respondent ’s counsel and Bar Counsel during the hearing, the
testimon y of respondent, an in camera review of Bar Counsel’s files and records,
and an ex parte meeting with Assistant Bar Counsel, that respondent violated Rule s of Professional Conduct 8.4 (c) & (d) during his representation in two separate

matters. 1 In additi on, the Committee concluded that the negotiated s ixty

- day suspension should be stayed in favor of a one
- year period of unsupervised probation conditioned upon respondent not being s ubject to a new disciplinary complaint that results in a finding that he violated a disciplinary rule . Further, the Committee found that a fitness requirement should only be imposed in the event respondent does not successfully complete his probation

.

1 The violations stemmed from respondent’s “inequitable conduct” as counsel for Kaken Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd ., in a patent infringement case and from m anufacturing documents as counsel for Genetech, in a separate pate nt interference case before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.3

We agree with the Committee ’s recommendation because it properly appli ed D.C. Bar XI 12.1 (c) and the elements adopted by this court in In re Ri gas 2 to arrive at this conclusion and we find no error in the Committee’s determination. Furthermore, the Committee reviewed the circumstances of the disciplinary event s , acknowledg ed the deterring impact of a prior suspension on his practice and found that the negotiated discipline

- a sixty

- day suspension

- falls within the range of discipline imposed for similar actions. 3 As the recommendation is to stay imposition of any sanction in lieu of one

- year of unsupervised probation
condition ed upon r espondent not violating a disciplinary rule in a jurisdiction in
which he is licensed , the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) is not

2 9 A.3d 494, 498 (D.C. 2010) (adopting, for neg otiated discipline cases, the Board of Professional Responsibility’s guidelines required for a Hearing Committee to satisfy itself after independent consideration that there is no evidence in the record of moral turpitude and outlining five elements to co nsider in reaching that conclusion: (1) the crime does not involve moral turpitude per se , (2) Bar Counsel, explaining his efforts, has exhausted all reasonable means to find proof of moral turpitude, (3) Bar Counsel does not believe that there is sufficie nt evidence of moral turpitude, (4) all the facts relevant to a determination of moral turpitude are stated in the petition, and (5) similar precedent is cited in the petition for negotiated discipline).

3 See In re Owens , 806 A.2d 1230 (D.C. 200 2 ) (imposing a thirty

- day suspension for making a series of false statements, including a statement under oath to an administrative law judge); In re Zeigler , 692 A.2d 1351, 1353 (D.C. 19 97 ) (imposing sixty

- day suspension for altering m edical records submit ted to a client’s insurance company).4

required

. However, we also agree with the imposition of a fitness requirement if , during the period of his probation, respondent violates any disciplinary rule in a jurisdiction in which he is licensed.

In accordance with our procedures i n 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 Steven B. Kelber is suspended from the practice of law in
the District of C olumbia for the period of sixty days, stayed in favor of a one
- year period of unsupervised probation and said probation is conditioned upon respondent not being the subject of a disciplinary complaint that results in a finding
that he violated a disciplinary rules of any jurisdiction in which he is licensed . In
the event that respondent does not successfully complete probation, he shall be suspended for sixty days and required to demonstrate fitness to practice law as a
condition to reinstatement

.
So ordered.