Opinion ID: 2558572
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Proof of Fitness

Text: In In re Cater, 887 A.2d 1, 24 (D.C. 2005), the Court stated that a fitness requirement is appropriate where there is clear and convincing evidence that casts a serious doubt [on] the attorney's continuing fitness to practice law. Such a requirement is intended to be an appropriate response to serious concerns about whether the attorney will act ethically and competently in the future, after the period of suspension has run. Id. at 22. In determining whether serious doubt is raised about a respondent's fitness to practice law, it is instructive to consider the Roundtree factors used for evaluating petitions for reinstatement. Id. at 1235. [12] Here, the nature and circumstances of the misconduct were seriousthe violation is one that undermines public confidence in public servants, and it was not inadvertent. Respondent was aware of the conflict issue when she undertook the representation of G. Thomas and made, at most, a half-hearted attempt to obtain ethical guidance. Indeed, the only evidence that Respondent sought any guidance at all was her own testimony regarding a call to an unnamed representative of the Bar, in which Respondent provided only a partial description of the relevant facts (omitting Respondent's substantial involvement with the G. Thomas matter after issuance of the LOD), and a call with a practicing attorney who never appeared before the Hearing Committee or before the federal court when it considered the District of Columbia's disqualification motion. Although the circumstances of the misconduct alone may not justify the imposition of a fitness requirement, we are amply satisfied that Respondent's actions in the disciplinary process, implicating the second through fifth Roundtree factors, provide clear and convincing evidence of a serious doubt regarding Respondent's continuing fitness to practice law. Second, the Board concludes that Respondent does not appreciate the seriousness of her misconduct. Respondent made false statements to the Board, the truth of which she certified, in seeking to excuse her failure to file her brief in a timely fashion. When Bar Counsel challenged those statements as false, she did not deny the allegation and made no response. Respondent's cavalier and dishonest conduct in responding to this disciplinary proceeding strongly suggests a failure to understand the wrongfulness of her conduct and an unwillingness to meet her obligations to the disciplinary system. In re Cleaver-Bascombe, 892 A.2d 396, 412-413 (D.C. 2006). Further, the Hearing Committee found that Respondent displayed significant visible and audible contempt during the disciplinary proceedings. Although the cold record cannot completely demonstrate the conduct, the Hearing Committee painted a vivid picture: Despite her able counsel's efforts, Respondent was dismissive of the proceeding and visibly contemptuous of witnesses who testified adversely to her position. She scoffed, harrumphed, and audibly sighed at testimony she did not like while smirking at the testimony of others. Tr. 3/30/06 at 1005-1006, 1010; Tr. 4/27/06 at 1359, 1381-1382. HC Rpt. ¶¶ VII; XIII(d). The Chair admonished her on several occasions. As the Hearing Committee recounted, the record clearly demonstrates Respondent's failure to acknowledge the wrongfulness of her conduct. Further, Respondent's unprofessional behavior during the disciplinary process shows that she does not recognize her obligations to the Court and its system of regulating attorney conduct. Her repeated defaults and her failure to appear for oral argument are red flags. The Court of Appeals has recently held that serious doubt about a lawyer's fitness to practice can arise from her conduct in the disciplinary process, even if she has participated to some degree in the proceedings. See In re Lea, 969 A.2d 881 (D.C.2009). In this case, the Hearing Committee and the Board may properly infer that Respondent lacks contrition and fails to appreciate the seriousness of her conduct based on her conduct and tone at the hearing, lack of credibility, and procedural defaults, including her failure to appear at oral argument, failure to file her brief on schedule and dishonest explanation regarding that failure to file. See id. at 887-88. Third, as the Hearing Committee noted, one of Respondent's first forays into private practice was the matter that resulted in this disciplinary proceedings. Given her ethical numbness, [13] we have substantial doubt that Respondent will, when again confronted with an ethics issue, correctly identify it, seek appropriate guidance and avoid a self-interested result. As the Hearing Committee observed: Having spent many hours with Respondent and having observed her demeanor, her conduct, and the manner in which Respondent views her professional responsibilities, the Committee concludes that the public is at risk from Respondent's unsupervised practices. HC Rpt. ¶ XII. In short, Respondent has given us many reasons to doubt her fitness to practice law. Her conduct in this matter does not demonstrate the ethical sensitivity required for practice, and Respondent is a prime candidate for future problems if the Bar does not intervene at this juncture.