Opinion ID: 2276550
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Disciplinary Hearing

Text: The hearing committee convened its hearing in this matter at 9:35 a.m. on February 2, 2005. The chairman of the committee stated at the outset that Ms. Lea had called to say that she wanted to participate in the hearing and could be there by 11:00 o'clock. The proceedings were adjourned until then; however, when Ms. Lea failed to arrive at 11:00 a.m., the hearing began without her. The Assistant Bar Counsel had just begun to examine a witness, Glen Harley, a legal secretary with the Office of Bar Counsel, when Ms. Lea called again, and the hearing committee, with her consent, allowed her to participate by telephone. [4] Ms. Lea asked for a continuance because she had overslept, because she had just taken her daughter to school (a local school in the District of Columbia, which she named), and because she had another appointment scheduled for 12:30 p.m. When the Assistant Bar Counsel objected to a continuance, Ms. Lea stated in response: I guess the consideration that I'm requesting is maybe not the norm; however, I think that when the base case is looked upon, it's not so severe that I think a day or even another monthif it has gone along for the last three years, I imagine it can go on for another day or week to give me a fair opportunity to be heard in front of this Board, which I find almost incredible to even be before you in the first place. Instead of granting Ms. Lea's request for a continuance, the hearing committee asked her to participate by telephone, to which she reluctantly agreed. [5] The hearing then proceeded in two phases: an evidentiary phase followed by a sanctions phase. Ms. Lea made an opening statement in which she admitted that she did not comply with Bar Counsel's written request for a response to the Rule 11 order and disciplinary charges, but she said that her inaction was due to personal reasons, which she later described during the sanctions phase. During the Assistant Bar Counsel's direct examination of Ms. Lea, she admitted that she did at some point see the letter [from Bar Counsel] dated June 21st. [6] She said she was not sure when she received the letter because the Pennsylvania address was that of her mother's home, and she happened to be visiting [her] mother sometime after June 21 when she first saw the letter. Once she did receive it, however, she responded immediately by calling Ms. Kello and attempt[ing] to explain the situation. Ms. Lea conceded that Ms. Kello asked her to respond in writing and that she agreed to do so. Ms. Lea recounted another conversation with Ms. Kello regarding her failure to serve me, and I offered my mother's address as a place of service. She testified, however, that after I offered my mother's address and gave my mother direction as to receipt of any mail correspondence that came from Bar Counsel in my mail, there were no more rejections or unclaimed documents regarding this matter from that address. Ms. Kello ... simply chose to use publication as the way to do this [even though I] told her that we would accept any service that came to us at [the Pennsylvania address] ... from Bar Counsel. Ms. Lea admitted that she was aware of the Specification of Charges against her, but she would not admit having received it. She did not recall the February 2003 telephone conversation in which she asked Ms. Kello for a copy of the Specification of Charges, but she did not deny that such a conversation took place. She stated that while she had not filed a written response to any documents presented to [her] by Bar Counsel, including the Specification of Charges, she had responded by way of telephone. However, she did not testify as to the substance of these responses. Ms. Lea blamed her unresponsiveness mainly on the fact that she did not have a fixed address. When she moved away from the District of Columbia, she did not update her address of record with the Bar because she was not living in the immediate area and because she thought that her license was suspended for failure to pay dues. She said that in 2001 she was either in Indianapolis, Philadelphia, or Monessen, Pennsylvania. When asked whether she stayed in the Washington area after she left the address at 4410 Massachusetts Avenue, she replied, I don't know the time period that I left that address ... so I can't answer follow-up questions as to where I was if I don't know when I left. [7] Ms. Lea testified that she gave Bar Counsel her mother's address in Pennsylvania because I would tell my mother to accept it, but I did not reside there permanently. At the time of the hearing, Ms. Lea's address was in a residential area of Washington, D.C. In her closing argument, she stated that she was unable to provide written responses because [she] had no means to do that at that time, but that I am now fully stable and prepared, and so I ask for some leniency, because, in fact, if you go strictly by the book and the black letter of the law, I did not conform. After the hearing committee made a preliminary, non-binding determination that at least one Rule ha[d] been violated, the committee turned to the sanctions phase of the hearing. Ms. Lea was permitted to introduce evidence of mitigating circumstances. She stated: Over the past four years of my life, I have been very much displaced and suffering financial detriment, which was basically instigated by the base, the foundation case that the Bar Counsel was investigating in this matter. It is a sore spot for me, very disturbing, and then this was unbelievable to me that I was being brought before the Bar Counsel on this matter. Not to get into the foundation of the case or anything, but it was a case that I was a plaintiff in, that actually called for me to reassess my career choice, because I thought that it was a travesty of justice and basically am still in awe of the outcome of that case with respect to how I was handled in that matter. She also testified about a traumatic event in her life that occurred soon after one of her conversations with Bar Counsel. Her daughter's father was the victim of a violent robbery, and he was found dead after having been missing for a week. Ms. Lea said that, as a result of this event, other than caring for her daughter, she was unable to prioritize her obligations. She went to Philadelphia to visit a friend and to get counseling. At about the same time, she contracted a blood disease for which she was hospitalized and received transfusions. These things, she said, took priority over me finding a computer and a setup to respond to the written responses, once I did get them from Bar Counsel. She further testified that she was now fully prepared to devote whatever time is necessary ... to respond to any requests.... When a committee member asked her whether she was ready to move forward, Ms. Lea answered, Absolutely. I'm very prepared to move forward. I have a computer. I have an office set up in my home. As of the date of the hearing, she said, she had been living in the District of Columbia for a year, a year-plus, and had owned a computer for approximately a week. Replying to another question, she said she had not submitted a handwritten response to the charges because she did not consider that to be professional.