Opinion ID: 2306145
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Original Discipline

Text: The Board's recommendation of a fitness requirement is based on the standard applied in original proceedings. In our previous opinion, we made it clear that Montana's decision to deny Respondent admission to its bar does not provide a basis for imposing either reciprocal or original discipline. 954 A.2d at 992. Nevertheless, the evidence gathered in Montana (and Virginia) certainly may be considered by our Board, and it may provide a basis for original discipline if the proper standard of proof is applied. According to the Board, [t]he augmented record in this case clearly and convincingly gives rise to serious doubt as to Respondent's fitness to practice law, by reason of his lengthy, untreated mental illness. The Board recognized that Respondent does not believe that he suffers from a mental illness and remains convinced that he is the victim of a wide-reaching conspiracy. Nevertheless, [i]n separate proceedings, a psychiatrist and psychologist each testified that the allegations are delusional and the litigation is a manifestation of Respondent's illness. Moreover, based on its independent evaluation of the record, including complaints and other documents filed by Respondent, the Board concluded that Respondent's litigation history bears the hallmarks of this condition. In In re Cater, 887 A.2d 1 (D.C. 2005), we held that to justify requiring a suspended attorney to prove fitness as a condition of reinstatement, the record in the disciplinary proceeding must contain clear and convincing evidence that casts a serious doubt upon the attorney's continuing fitness to practice law. Id. at 6. According to the Board, [t]aken as a whole, the record makes it abundantly clear that Respondent suffers from a delusional disorder of a persecutory type and should be required to demonstrate fitness before he is authorized to resume the practice of law. This conclusion is amply supported by the record. [4]