Opinion ID: 1969239
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: James Brown Case

Text: Rule 1.1(b): The Committee found that Bar Counsel established with clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated this rule in connection with his representation of Brown. Rule 1.1(a): The Committee concluded that Bar Counsel made no showing that Respondent lacked the requisite legal knowledge and skill to represent Brown in his appeal, and, accordingly, found that this rule had not been violated. Rules 1.3(a), 1.3(b)(1), 8.4(d), and 1.16(d): The Committee refused to make findings as to whether these rules were violated because, in its view, the basis for each of those charges was essentially duplicative of the basis for the charge of violating Rule 1.1(b). No mitigation evidence was offered by Respondent. At the conclusion of the hearing, Bar Counsel referred to three previous informal admonitions as being aggravating circumstances. The Committee recommended a 30-day suspension. Its rationale was that, although Respondent's neglect was serious, and even though he has received three informal admonitions during his 18-years of practice in the District of Columbia, each of the three violations found by the Committee related to the same element of neglect. Moreover, there was no finding of dishonesty.