Opinion ID: 2065798
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Deliberate evasion of service.

Text: It is apparent from the language of the Board's decision which we have quoted supra at pp. ___-___, that an important, probably decisive, factor in its conclusion that Godette should not be required to prove fitness as a condition for reinstatement was its disagreement with the Hearing Committee's determination that Godette deliberately evaded service of process. In the perceived absence of substantial evidence showing deliberate evasion, the Board conclude[d] that this is not an appropriate case for a fitness requirement. In our view, however, there was ample evidence supporting the Hearing Committee's position. We note at the outset that Godette has never denied that he deliberately evaded service of process or that he failed to cooperate with Bar Counsel and the Board. Godette was on notice that he had been charged, inter alia, with failure to respond to the reasonable demands of the disciplinary authorities and with serious interference with the administration of justice. If he had participated in the proceedings before the Hearing Committee, which he voluntarily elected not to do, he would have realized that he had effectively been accused of evading service of process. If he did not attempt to evade service, he could readily have testified to that effect. However, Godette did not contest any of the evidence presented by Bar Counsel, and it is not the function of the Board (or of the court) to create hypothetical excuses for him. Rather, we must determine whether the evidence of record, considered as a whole, is substantial. [8] We entertain no doubt that, based on the record as a whole, there was substantial evidence that Godette deliberately avoided service of the complaint. Events obscure, ambiguous, or even meaningless when viewed in isolation may, like the component parts of an equation, become clear, definitive, and informative when considered in relation to other action. Local Lodge No. 1424, Int'l Ass'n of Machinists v. NLRB, 362 U.S. 411, 416 n. 6, 80 S.Ct. 822, 4 L.Ed.2d 832 (1960); see also Shillaire, 549 A.2d at 345 (quoting Local Lodge No. 1424 ). Thus, the history of 1. Bar Counsel's unsuccessful efforts to persuade Godette to respond to Mr. Hill-Bey's complaint (seven separate unanswered letters and an unanswered motion to compel over a six-month period); 2. Godette's telephoned message that he would submit a response to Bar Counsel within three days, followed by his failure to submit any response at all; and 3. Seven unsuccessful attempts by the process server to effect personal service upon Godette at times ranging from 6:40 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., showed that Godette had no intention of responding to the complaint or voluntarily accepting service, or, indeed, of cooperating with the disciplinary authorities in any manner whatsoever. [9] Thus, the members of the Hearing Committee were not precluded from using their common sense in evaluating the record, [10] nor were they required to believe that the noises that the process server heard at Godette's home at, e.g., 6:40 a.m. on May 12, 2003, might have been made by a minor ineligible to accept service or even by a dog or a cat. Similarly, the Hearing Committee was not obliged to attribute to coincidence the failure of anyone to open the door on each of the occasions, on different days, when the process server came to Godette's home. Coincidences happen, but an explanation not predicated on happenstance is often the one that has the ring of truth. Burwell v. United States, 901 A.2d 763, 770 (D.C. 2006) (citations omitted). Accordingly, we conclude that there was substantial evidence to support a finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that as a part of his extended and consistent refusal to cooperate in any way in the disciplinary process, Godette, inter alia, deliberately avoided service of process.