Opinion ID: 1943936
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Contact Member Approval

Text: The Board also contends that Bar Counsel's recommendation should be rejected because he failed to obtain the approval of a contact member before submitting the second stipulation to the hearing committee. Under D.C. Bar Rules, Bar Counsel may not dismiss a complaint, institute formal charges, or informally admonish an attorney without the prior approval of a contact member appointed by the Board. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 8(b). [6] We have no doubt that Bar Counsel must follow the rules that have been established to govern Counsel's activities. Although, as the quasi-independent prosecutorial arm of the court, Bar Counsel is not technically an agency, Bar Counsel similarly is bound to follow its own rules and regulations. Braddock v. Smith, 711 A.2d 835, 840 (D.C.1998) (quoting Macauley v. District of Columbia Taxicab Comm'n, 623 A.2d 1207, 1209 (D.C.1993)). Nevertheless, failure to do so is harmless if that error had no effect on the outcome of the proceeding. See id. (holding that failure of an agency to follow its rules will not lead to reversal where the petitioner has not been prejudiced by the deviation from required procedures); see also Wisconsin Avenue Nursing Home v. District of Columbia Comm'n on Human Rights, 527 A.2d 282, 289 (D.C.1987) (holding that prejudice exists only if substantial doubt exists whether the agency would have made the same ultimate finding with the error removed). That reasoning holds even more in bar discipline cases, where the court is the ultimate sanctioning authority, see In re Slattery, 767 A.2d 203, 215 (D.C.2001), and, when deference is owed in the area of sanctions, that deference is owed to the Board, not to Bar Counsel. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g). Here, the Board contact members reviewing the second stipulation directed Bar Counsel to prosecute the twelve charges it contained. What Bar Counsel did when he earlier had presented these charges (admitted by the respondent in the stipulation) to the hearing committee was, in essence, to prosecute those charges, [7] and therefore its failure to obtain preapproval was harmless.