Case Name: IN RE Jean M. ROBINSON, Respondent. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 484954)
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 2019-05-02
Citations: 207 A.3d 169
Docket Number: No. 19-BG-39
Parties: IN RE Jean M. ROBINSON, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 207
Pages: 169–170

Head Matter:
IN RE Jean M. ROBINSON, Respondent.
A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 484954)
No. 19-BG-39
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Decided: May 2, 2019

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
This decision is non-precedential. Please refer to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1 (d) regarding the appropriate citation of this opinion.
In this disciplinary matter, the Ad Hoc Hearing Committee (the Committee) recommends approval of an amended petition for negotiated attorney discipline. See D.C. Bar R. XI § 12.1 (c). The petition is based on respondent's voluntary acknowledgement that she violated Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (c), 1.6 (a), and 8.4 (c) (which apply here in accordance with Rule 8.5(b)(2)(ii) of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct ) by intentionally prejudicing her client in the course of the attorney-client relationship, revealing client confidence or secrets, and acting with dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. The proposed discipline is an eighteen-month suspension from the practice of law with a requirement that respondent prove fitness as a condition of reinstatement.
Having reviewed the Committee's recommendation in accordance with our procedures in uncontested disciplinary cases, see D.C. Bar R. XI § 12.1 (d), we agree that this case is appropriate for negotiated discipline and that the proposed disposition is not unduly lenient or inconsistent with dispositions imposed for comparable professional misconduct. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that respondent Jean M. Robinson is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for eighteen months. Respondent's reinstatement is conditioned upon her demonstration of fitness to resume the practice of law pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16. We direct respondent's attention to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) and 16 (c), under which she will not be eligible to seek reinstatement until eighteen months after she files the necessary affidavit with this court in compliance with § 14.
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.").