Opinion ID: 2310847
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the disciplinary proceeding

Text: On October 7, 1991, Abrams entered a plea of guilty to a two-count information charging violations of 2 U.S.C. § 192 (1985) (willful failure to answer questions pertinent to a Congressional inquiry). [5] On November 15, 1991, Abrams was placed on probation for a term of two years and ordered to perform one hundred hours of community service. Following Abrams' convictions, Bar Counsel charged him with three counts of conduct involving dishonesty, deceit and misrepresentation, in violation of Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(4) of the former Code of Professional Responsibility. A hearing was held on December 21, 1992 before Hearing Committee No. 8, and the Committee took the case under advisement. On December 24, 1992, three days after that hearing, President Bush issued the full and unconditional pardon on which Abrams now relies. On April 8, 1993, the Hearing Committee issued a comprehensive Report and Recommendation in which it found that Abrams had committed the charged violations. The Committee recommended that Abrams be suspended from practice for one year. The Committee took note of the presidential pardon, but concluded that [i]n the context of attorney disciplinary proceedings, a presidential pardon will not preclude the imposition of sanctions. Abrams excepted to the Hearing Committee's recommendation, but he did so solely on the ground that the proposed sanction was too harsh. In a pro se Memorandum to the Board, Abrams explicitly acknowledged that the presidential pardon did not preclude Bar Counsel from pursuing disciplinary charges and that the Hearing Committee was correct in so concluding. On July 26, 1993, the Board issued its Report and Recommendation. The Board sustained the Hearing Committee's findings and recommended, as had the Hearing Committee, that Abrams be suspended from practice for one year. [6] Apparently because Abrams had conceded the issue, the Board did not address at all the effect, if any, of the presidential pardon. Abrams filed timely exceptions to the Board's recommendation and, following the issuance of the division's opinion in Abrams I and the vacation of that opinion in Abrams II, the case was argued to the full court sitting en banc.