Opinion ID: 1969239
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Remaining Eight Bar Counsel Charges

Text: We do not concur with the Committee's decision not to consider whether the evidence established violations by Respondent of the eight remaining charges for the reason that the underlying facts relating to those charges were duplicative of facts supporting violations of Rule 1.1(b). There have been numerous instances where hearing committees, the Board, and the Court of Appeals have found violations of multiple rules based upon the same conduct of the respondent. See, e.g., In re Dietz, 633 A.2d 850 (D.C.1993), where the Court of Appeals found that, in neglecting his client's divorce action, the respondent violated Rules 1.3(a), 1.3(b)(1), 1.3(c), 1.4(a), 1.15(d), and 8.4 of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct. We believe that the appropriate manner for a hearing committee to consider multiple violations based upon a single set of facts is to determine the weight, if any, that should be given to those circumstances in recommending the sanction to be imposed. Since the Committee has not made separate findings with respect to the remaining eight charges, it is incumbent upon the Board to determine, on the basis of the record, whether or not any or all of them were established by clear and convincing evidence.