Opinion ID: 2102852
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: dissent of james c. mckay

Text: I respectfully dissent from the report and recommendation of the majority of the Board on Professional Responsibility. The issues before the Board are whether or not Respondent's admitted violation of Judge Huhn's probation order constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in contravention of DR 1-102(A)(5), and, if so, whether reciprocal discipline should be imposed. The majority asserts that, in order to recommend discipline, the Board must find there has been some misconduct in order for the system to impact upon respondent's ability to practice law. (Board Op. at 1) The majority further believes it is unclear that Respondent has admitted to any disciplinary violation ( Id., fn. 5) The violation of Judge Huhn's order clearly constituted misconduct. Moreover, Respondent acknowledged the violation in his Joint Petition, and agreed that his misconduct warranted the sanction imposed by the Court of Appeals of Maryland. In my view the recent precedent of the D.C.Court of Appeals cited by the majority does not demonstrate that DR-1-102(A)(5) is inapplicable to Respondent's misconduct. The majority principally relies on the following language in In re Shorter, 570 A.2d 760 (D.C.1990): ... [O]ur holdings in Reback, supra, and Keiler, supra, [are] to the effect that DR-1-102(A)(5) was drafted to protect the integrity of particular decisions and of the decision-making process, and thus was directed against a particular identifiable case or tribunal. (570 A.2d at 768) The particular decision and decision-making process entitled to protection in this matter were Judge Huhn's decision and order placing Respondent on probation. Respondent, by flouting that order, unquestionably subverted the decision-making process respecting a particular identifiable case and tribunal. In marked contrast, the conduct of the respondent in Shorter (willful failure to pay income taxes) was unrelated to any decision-making process or to any particular case or tribunal. In all of the other cases cited by the majority, the respondents were found to have engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. However, I fail to understand how those decisions support the proposition that Respondent's actions did not constitute such conduct. The majority opinion asserts that it is the Respondent's actions of testing positive to cocaine that the Board must examine in order to determine whether or not there was a disciplinary violation. ( Id. at 821) That statement overlooks the fact that such conduct violated Judge Huhn's probation order, requiring additional Court proceedings. It is that misconduct which, in my opinion, constituted a violation of DR-102(A)(5) The comments to Rule 8.4(d), the successor provision to DR 1-102(A)(5), are useful guides which, in my view, lead to the correct answer to the question raised in this case. Comment 3 points out that the majority of the cases have arisen from a lawyer's failure to cooperate with Bar Counsel by not responding to inquiries or subpoenas, or failing to abide by agreements with Bar Counsel. Other actions held by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to be prejudicial to the administration of justice have included a lawyer's failure to appear in court for a scheduled hearing; failure to obey court orders [comment 4]; failure to turn over assets of a conservatorship to the court or to the successor conservator; failure to keep the Bar advised of a change of address after being warned to do so; the giving of a worthless check in settlement of a claims against a lawyer [comment 5]; and failure to submit bank statements to the Auditor upon request. Matter of Burka, 423 A.2d 181 (D.C.1980). In the light of those decisions, and bearing in mind the admonition in comment 5 that the rule is to be interpreted flexibly, and include any improper behavior of an analogous nature (emphasis added), it is my opinion that Respondent's disobedience of Judge Huhn's probation order constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, certainly at least as prejudicial as the failure of a lawyer to keep Bar Counsel informed of his address, or the giving of a worthless check in settlement of a claim against a lawyer. Rule XI, § 11(c) requires that reciprocal discipline be imposed unless the attorney demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the case falls within one or more of five exceptions. That express requirement was emphasized recently by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in In re Zilberberg, 612 A.2d 832, 834 (D.C.1992). Respondent made no effort to demonstrate that any of the five exceptions applies; in fact, Respondent conceded that he engaged in misconduct, and agreed to be sanctioned. In the light of that unambiguous requirement, I believe the Board is compelled to recommend imposition of reciprocal discipline in this matter. For the reasons stated above, I dissent to the report and recommendation of the majority of the Board. Respectfully submitted, James C. McKay June 2, 1993 Kate Blackwell Zumas joins in this dissent.