Opinion ID: 180499
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pattern of Misconduct

Text: While Gell may have been unaware that her default strategy was improper, it nonetheless qualified as a pattern of misconduct. Each default presented Gell with a new opportunity to assess the reasonableness of her conduct, as evidence accumulated that her default strategy, at the very least, imposed additional burdens on briefs or required forms. See Sukhdev Singh v. Attorney General, 08-3380, dismissal order filed Nov. 06, 2008 (brief due by Oct. 22, 2008); Finda Chokpelleh v. Attorney General, 08-4284, dismissal order filed Dec. 16, 2008(forms due by Nov. 28, 2008); Harjeet Singh v. Attorney General, 09-2162, dismissal order filed March 23, 2010 (brief due by Nov. 30, 2009); Shahzeb Mirza v. Attorney General, 10-2892, dismissal order filed Sept. 22, 2010 (brief due by Sept. 7, 2010). These more recent defaults are in addition to the earlier Third Circuit defaults that were noted in the August 2007 referral order. Aug. 2007 order at 2 n.1. An attorney’s performance in another circuit may be relevant to the issue of whether the attorney will, in the future, be able to comply with this Court’s rules and orders, even if we have no intention of disciplining the attorney for his or her conduct in that other circuit. In the present case, since Gell’s performance in this Court has clearly improved, and since the circumstances surrounding the recent Third Circuit defaults currently are not known to us, we accord them no weight for purposes of the present order. 16 the Court. However, we do agree that Gell’s sincerely-held belief that her defaults were not improper suggests that less weight be accorded to the fact that a pattern existed.