Opinion ID: 2276550
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The repetitive nature of respondent's lack of cooperation

Text: In its discussion of the second Cater factor, the Board argues in its brief that repeated misconduct usually refers to a failure to respond to more than one disciplinary complaint. Therefore, the Board maintains that because this was Ms. Lea's first disciplinary infraction, she did not demonstrate the kind of `indifference or worse' toward the disciplinary process that would warrant a fitness requirement under the second Cater factor (quoting Board Report). Godette I demonstrates, however, that a repeated failure to respond to a single disciplinary complaint may be considered when determining whether to impose a fitness requirement. In that case we held that [e]ven in a single investigation, an attorney's disregard for the disciplinary process may be so repeated, deliberate, and prolonged that a requirement to prove fitness is entirely justified. Godette I, 919 A.2d at 1167. Here, because of Ms. Lea's repeated failure to cooperate, Bar Counsel mailed at least five letters asking for her response to the complaint; the Board ordered her to respond; a process server was unable to effect personal service after numerous attempts; Bar Counsel finally had to resort to service by publication; and almost four years elapsed before the committee could hold a hearing on the disciplinary complaint. Thus, as a matter of law, we reject the Board's assertion that because this is Ms. Lea's first disciplinary infraction, a fitness requirement is not justified. We conclude instead that the Board should have given weight to Ms. Lea's repeated failure to respond to the complaint. [11]