Opinion ID: 2258485
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Applicable Legal Principles for Fitness Requirement

Text: We have held that `in circumstances where the respondent has repeatedly evinced indifference (or worse) toward the disciplinary procedures by which the Bar regulates itself, a requirement that the attorney prove fitness to resume practice [together with a thirty-day suspension] is entirely reasonable.' Delaney, supra, 697 A.2d at 1213 (quoting In re Lockie, 649 A.2d 546, 547 (D.C.1994)) (in turn citing In re Siegel, 635 A.2d 345, 346 (D.C.1993)). In Delaney, like the present case, respondent was found to have violated D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(d) and D.C. Bar R. XI, § 2(b)(3). 697 A.2d at 1212. After an ethical complaint was filed against Delaney, he never submitted any responses to the charges, to Bar Counsel's inquiries or to the Board's order. Id. at 1213. Significantly, the Hearing Committee found that Delaney had evaded service of documents sent to him, necessitating extreme measures to effect service, and, unlike the present case, Delaney did not appear at the hearing. Id. at 1213 & n. 3. This court adopted the recommendation of the Board [9] for a thirty-day suspension with a requirement that Delaney prove fitness as a condition of reinstatement. In adopting the recommendation, however, we observed that since neither respondent nor Bar Counsel excepted to the recommendation, our review of the Board's recommendation is `especially deferential.' Id. at 1214 (quoting In re Jeffries, 685 A.2d 1165 (D.C.1996)). In Mattingly, supra, 790 A.2d at 579, and In re Giles, 741 A.2d 1062 (D.C.1999), cited by Bar Counsel, we imposed a thirty-day suspension with a fitness requirement for reinstatement for violations of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 2(b)(3) and D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(d). Again, neither Bar Counsel nor the respondent opposed the recommended sanction; therefore, our review, as in Delaney, supra, was especially deferential. Mattingly, 790 A.2d at 580; Giles, 741 A.2d at 1062. In Mattingly, it was the second time that respondent had been suspended for the same misconduct. 790 A.2d at 580. In Giles, the record showed that respondent repeatedly and deliberately failed to respond to written inquiries by Bar Counsel seeking his cooperation in the investigation, and ignored an order of the Board compelling him to respond to Bar Counsel's inquiries. 741 A.2d at 1062. Thus, in determining whether to impose a fitness requirement in cases involving violation of rules 8.4(d) and XI, § 2(b)(3), our focus has been upon the egregiousness of the attorneys' deliberate disregard for the disciplinary process. Delaney, supra, 697 A.2d at 1214.