Opinion ID: 1997580
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the report and recommendation of the board

Text: The Board adopted the Hearing Committee's findings and legal conclusions, and agreed with all of the Committee's recommendations as to sanction save one. With respect to what it characterized as the close question whether Chisholm should be required to demonstrate fitness as a condition of reinstatement, the Board wrote: Respondent's misconduct was very serious, involving neglect of a case for over five years and persistent, intentional dishonesty, resulting in the needless incarceration of the client. It is not apparent that Respondent understands the seriousness of his misconduct. Before the Hearing Committee, he testified that he did his client a favor by failing to pursue the appeal, because the six-year delay occasioned by Respondent's inaction provided more time for Mr. Morris to become rehabilitated. In argument before the Board, Respondent argued that he was not even retained to handle the appeal before the BIA. Moreover, Respondent has taken no steps to remedy past wrongs, such as returning the retainer he received to handle Mr. Morris' appeal. However, we are persuaded that Respondent's misconduct was largely the product of accepting a case outside his area of expertise. He has no record of disciplinary violations in this jurisdiction, and we acknowledge his successful result in Mr. Morris' criminal proceedings. We accordingly conclude that a showing of fitness would be unwarranted.