Opinion ID: 2293414
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Board Report and Recommendations

Text: The Board issued its Report in July 2010, unanimously adopting the findings and legal conclusions of the Hearing Committee; however, the nine members of the Board were divided as to the appropriate sanction. [18] Respondent argued to the Board that a three to six-month suspension may be appropriate, but because of mitigating factors (the delay in handling his case and his ethical and honest practice for the last 14 years), a 30-day suspension without a fitness requirement upon reinstatement was more appropriate. Bar Counsel modified its recommended sanction by adding to its request for a suspension of at least two years with a fitness requirement upon reinstatement, if not a greater sanction up to and including disbarment. Five members of the Board supported some form of suspension, but were divided between two separate reports. Three members supported Board Member Ray Bolze's report (Bolze Report), recommending a three-year suspension without a fitness requirement upon reinstatement. The Bolze Report recognized the gravity of respondent's conduct, noting that [c]learly, the scope of misconduct here calls for a severe sanction. However, the Bolze Report also distinguished respondent's conduct from cases in which we have disbarred attorneys for misappropriation of funds and flagrant dishonesty, noting that [h]ere, there was no taking of money for personal gain, and no perjury, no fabrication of false documents for personal benefit, and no falsehoods to Bar Counsel or the Hearing Committee. Mr. Bolze also noted that despite the numerous violations with which respondent was charged, there were strong mitigating factors, including respondent's motive for not disclosing certain voucher payments due to risk of harm to cooperatives, the lapse of time since the conduct in question, the lack of any meaningful prior disciplinary history, [r]espondent's cooperation with Bar Counsel leading to an agreement on a detailed Stipulation, and the array of testaments as to [r]espondent's good conduct in the practice of law since the events involved here. Two other Board members, joining Board Member James Mercurio's report (Mercurio Report), recommended the least stringent sanction of a one-year suspension without a fitness requirement upon restatement. Mr. Mercurio found disbarment inappropriate because respondent's conduct could not reasonably be seen as akin to intentional misappropriation or flagrant dishonesty, emphasizing respondent's motives as a mitigating factor. The Mercurio Report stated: No one has suggested that the funds expended through the vouchers [r]espondent signed were not prudently and efficiently directed toward achievement of the highly important public goals that [r]espondent was pursuing during the Card/Moore and Newton Street Crew cases. Under these circumstances, the disciplinary mission to protect the public, the courts and the legal profession does not . . . require that [r]espondent be dealt a career-ending sanction . . . [when] the USAO . . . had been misusing [the voucher system] for many years. The Mercurio Report also noted respondent's moral fitness to practice law was demonstrated not only by the two judges who offered character testimony in the hearing, but also through numerous character letters, performance evaluations, and awards that respondent introduced into evidence. Alternatively, four members of the Board favored disbarment and two separate reports in support of disbarment were prepared. Three members supported Board Member Deborah Jeffrey's report (Jeffrey Report), concluding that disbarment was appropriate because it was necessary and appropriate to express the condemnation that [r]espondent's conduct merits and to deter others from similar misconduct. Board Member Theodore Frank's report (Frank Report) recommended disbarment on narrower grounds, noting that the Jeffrey Report d[id] not adequately recognize the difficulties [r]espondent faced in prosecuting two complex criminal cases where the lives of his witnesses, members of their family or their friends were at risk, and instead should consider the totality of respondent's violations in recommending disbarment. The Frank Report further noted that if the only violations [had been] the misuse of vouchers . . . suspension [would be] appropriate, but respondent's intentional deception of the court and defense counsel, when coupled with the other violations [of misuse of vouchers], crosses the line from misconduct which warrants a suspension to misconduct that requires disbarment. This case is now before us on exceptions by respondent and Bar Counsel to the Board's Report, with respondent taking exception [19] to the Board's findings of fact and recommended sanctions and Bar Counsel taking exception only to sanctions. On September 30, 2010, this court suspended respondent pursuant to D.C.Bar. R. XI § 9(g) because respondent failed to show cause why he should not be suspended pending our consideration of this disciplinary matter.