Opinion ID: 1910048
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Respondent's Present Character

Text: The Hearing Committee recognized the fact that during the course of his career Respondent has frequently provided and continues to provide representation on a pro bono basis to various clients HC. Report at 44. No direct evidence of Respondent's character was introduced in Respondent's hearing. At the end of his hearing on June 2, 2004, after the Committee had conferred and announced its preliminary, nonbinding decision that some of the violations charged had been established and Bar Counsel had submitted his evidence in aggravation, Respondent stated that he intended to submit evidence in mitigation in the form of documentary evidence and requested that the record be kept open. 4 Tr. 325-29. The Chair agreed that the record would be kept open and left the date of closing to be agreed upon by the parties. Id. Closing of the record ultimately was set for July 19, 2004. Hearing Committee Order dated July 12, 2004. On that date, Respondent filed a Motion to Keep the Record Open for Submission of Evidence on Mitigation, in which he wished to submit what he referred to as evidence in the nature of character evidence. Respondent's Motion dated July 19, 2004. In that motion, Respondent described the evidence he wished to submit as follows: By way of proffer, Respondent would present evidence from several former and present clients whom he has represented in immigration proceedings either on a pro bono or a reduced fee basis. These clients would further testify that Respondent was successful in assisting them to achieve their goal of remaining [in] this country. The testimony would show that some of these matters were quite protracted in nature, lasting over several years. The evidence would demonstrate that Respondent would keep in appropriate communication with his clients, and would have the clients and their witnesses well prepared for the various proceedings involved. The Committee Chair, after receiving Bar Counsel's opposition, denied the motion but stated that [t]he Committee will accept as credible Respondent's uncontradicted testimony that in the past he has frequently provided, and currently continues to provide, pro bono legal representation to various clients. Hearing Committee Order dated July 23, 2004. Respondent has taken no exception to that ruling.