Opinion ID: 1997580
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: The Board's analysis.

Text: The Board, as we have noted, found the question whether a fitness requirement should be imposed to be a close one. In resolving that question in Chisholm's favor, the Board expressed the view that Chisholm's misconduct was largely the product of accepting a case outside his area of expertise. The Board also acknowledge[d] [Chisholm's] successful result in Mr. Morris' criminal proceedings and noted that he had not previously been disciplined in the District of Columbia. We respectfully disagree with the Board's analysis. It is true that Chisholm lacked expertise in immigration matters, but the record does not bear out the notion that this was the cause of his misconduct. As the Board itself explicitly found, the record demonstrates persistent and intentional dishonesty on Chisholm's part. There is no rational nexus between repeated acts of dishonesty and an attorney's lack of specialized expertise. Moreover, Chisholm was offered assistance and advice by Morris' prior attorney, but failed altogether to act upon it. Finally, Chisholm's failure to acquaint himself with even the most rudimentary aspects of immigration practice [16] compounded his misconduct, rather than excusing it. The Board's reliance on Chisholm's representation of Morris in his criminal case stands on no firmer footing. The two representations were independent of one another, and each was separately compensated. The complete abandonment of a client in an immigration matter cannot be excused, wholly or partially, by counsel's satisfactory representation of that client in a different case. Here, that abandonment inexorably led to the loss of Morris' liberty for a significant period of time. Moreover, Morris' convictions were vacated, and the criminal charges against Morris were dismissed, on motion of the United States as a result of police misconduct in the Fourth District Vice Unit. That dismissal was not contingent upon the quality of Chisholm's work. Under these circumstances, the success of Chisholm's representation was, at least in some measure, fortuitous. In according substantial weight to Chisholm's successful result in the criminal case, the Board evidently failed to consider or mention the most important circumstance that led to that result. Chisholm's lack of prior discipline in the District is undoubtedly a legitimate factor in the disciplinary calculus. [17] In our view, however, this factor is significantly outweighed by the evidence relating to the other Roundtree factors, two of which the Board did not address at all.