Opinion ID: 2266107
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Chair

Text: Respondent also alleges that the chair was biased because he suggested that one of respondent's witnesses had not added much to respondent's case. This contention borders on the frivolous. It is evident from this record that the chair merely attempted to ascertain the number of witnesses respondent intended to call, and by way of a proffer of their testimony, to determine whether their testimony would be cumulative or even relevant, and whether stipulations might be a more efficient way to present the evidence. The chair made this inquiry after three witnesses, from a list of over a dozen prospective mitigation witnesses, had testified. Such an inquiry, rather than indicating bias or prejudice, was nothing more than the reasonable exercise of the presiding officer's prerogative to properly conduct the proceedings. See BOARD RULE 11.2 (Hearing Committee shall determine the weight and significance [of the] ... evidence, and may exclude irrelevant and cumulative evidence.); see also Williams v. United States, 228 A.2d 846, 848 (D.C.1967) ([chair] has responsibility of moving a [hearing] along in an orderly and efficient manner; in short he has the responsibility of managing the conduct of a [hearing]); Molnar v. Gulfcoast Transit Co., 371 F.2d 639, 640 (5th Cir.1967) (the need to preserve limited judicial resources puts burden on judge to give procedural direction to a case to assure the most effective use of resources consistent with interests of justice). There is no support whatsoever in this record that the chair's actions in any way denied respondent a fair and full opportunity to present his case to the committee. Therefore, it is ORDERED that respondent, Clarence F. Stanback, Jr., shall be disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia, effective thirty days from the date of this opinion. WAGNER, Chief Judge, dissenting: Respondent, Clarence Stanback, a previously exemplary lawyer according to the evidence of record, admitted committing the serious disciplinary violations involved here. The hearing committee found that the medical evidence conclusively established that Stanback suffered from alcohol abuse and depression, the conditions to which he attributed his aberrant behavior and sought to prove in mitigation of sanction. See In re Kersey, 520 A.2d 321, 326 (D.C.1987). The hearing committee also determined that Stanback met his burden of establishing both his disabling condition and causation as to all violations occurring in or after March, 1991. [1] See In re Miller, 553 A.2d 201, 203 (D.C.1989). Consistent with the determination of the hearing committee and the recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility (Board), this court rejects Stanback's mitigation claim, concluding that he failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that his disabling condition also existed during the five months immediately preceding March 1991. [2] However, the undisputed evidence, expert and otherwise, establishes that Stanback's disability did not appear suddenly in March 1991, but as is typical of such conditions, evolved over a significant period of time, including the five-month period pivotal to his mitigation claim. The record shows that the factfinder made no credibility determinations against Stanback and the other witnesses concerning the nature and duration of his disability; therefore, its rejection of his mitigation evidence during the critical period is not explicable on that basis. A review of the record will show that Stanback met the burden of proof to which he was held at the time of the proceedings before the Board, i.e., that his disabling condition `substantially affected' the charged misconduct by a preponderance of the evidence. Miller, 553 A.2d at 203. Whether tested against that standard or the clear and convincing evidence standard, which the court adopts today, the record demonstrates that Stanback established his disability and its connection with his misconduct. For these reasons and those which follow, I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the court.