Opinion ID: 2258485
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Level of Egregiousness

Text: In this case, the Board concluded that respondent's conduct was not so egregious as to warrant the imposition of a fitness requirement. Specifically, the Board was persuaded by respondent's level of cooperation in the proceedings, including his general denial of the charges, participation in the hearing and legitimate objections to Bar Counsel's interrogatory-like questions. Thus, respondent's conduct differed from cases where an egregious disregard of the system was found, thereby warranting a fitness requirement. See Giles, supra, 741 A.2d at 1062 (fitness requirement imposed where attorney repeatedly and deliberately failed to respond to Bar Counsel's inquiries and disregarded the Board's order); Wright, supra, 702 A.2d at 1257 (holding that [r]espondent's failure to participate at any stage of the disciplinary process reflects an egregious disregard for his obligations within the disciplinary system . . . [and] is an aggravating factor for purposes of arriving at a sanction); Delaney, supra, 697 A.2d at 1213-14 (fitness requirement imposed where attorney failed to respond to Bar Counsel's letters, motion, complaint or participate in the hearing and evaded service); Lockie, supra, 649 A.2d at 547 (deliberate and repeated disregard of Bar Counsel's inquiries and Board's order preventing completion of investigation of two serious charges warranted proof of fitness to resume practice). The Board's recommended sanction, which excludes a fitness showing before reinstatement, is consistent with the discipline in cases where the conduct was less egregious than the cases in which the requirement was imposed. See In re Beller, 802 A.2d 340 (D.C.2002) (thirty-day suspension imposed for counsel's failure to respond to repeated inquiries from Bar Counsel and the Board regarding three complaints with reinstatement conditioned on cooperation with Bar Counsel in the cases); In re Beaman, 775 A.2d 1063 (D.C.2001) (thirty-day suspension for counsel's conceded failure to respond to inquiries from Bar Counsel and orders of the Board); In re Nielsen, 768 A.2d 41 (D.C.2001) (public censure for violations of D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(d) and D.C. Bar R. XI, § 2(b)(3) for failure to respond timely to the requests of Bar Counsel and the Board); In re Lilly, 699 A.2d 1135 (D.C.1997) (thirty-day suspension because counsel ignored repeatedly Bar Counsel's requests for information and a Board order, with reinstatement conditioned upon full compliance with Bar Counsel's request for information). We agree with the Board that respondent's conduct did not evidence the level of egregiousness warranting a fitness requirement, and consistent with our deferential standard, we see no reason not to defer to its unanimously recommended sanction. See Steele, supra, 630 A.2d at 199 (This court will adopt the Board's recommended sanction `unless to do so would foster a tendency toward inconsistent dispositions for comparable conduct or would otherwise be unwarranted.') (quoting D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g) (1992)) (other citations omitted). Respondent's initial response to Bar Counsel, subsequent participation in the disciplinary hearing where he testified, meeting with Assistant Bar Counsel and production of some documents and acknowledgment of misconduct distinguish this case from those in which a fitness requirement has been imposed. As we have recognized, the imposition of a fitness requirement operates to increase the length of the suspension. In re Smith, 649 A.2d 299, 300 (D.C.1994). Although respondent is not without fault during the proceedings, his conduct is not so egregious as to indicate a need for a fitness showing with its inevitable prolongation of the suspension.