Opinion ID: 2276550
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Hearing Committee's Report and Recommendation

Text: In its report and recommendation to the Board, the hearing committee found that Ms. Lea was not credible when she claimed to have cooperated with Bar Counsel and when she stated that no mail came to her mother's house once she gave Bar Counsel her mother's Pennsylvania address. [8] Rather, the committee found that Ms. Lea took affirmative steps that interfered with the disciplinary proceedings by repeatedly evading service. It noted that none of the certified letters sent to the Pennsylvania address were accepted, despite Ms. Lea's awareness of Bar Counsel's efforts to contact her. The committee also found that, contrary to her assertions, Ms. Lea had the ability to respond to the Rule 11 order by using either her prior employer's business facilities or another person's computer (she testified that she could have used someone else's computer had she made the effort to do so). In addition, the committee found that Ms. Lea lack[ed] both contrition and an appreciation of the seriousness of her misconduct, referring to her comments regarding the Rule 11 sanctions, her failure to prepare for the hearing, her failure to appear at either of the scheduled times, and her admission that she had scheduled another appointment for 12:30 p.m. on the hearing date. The committee was also troubled by Ms. Lea's continued failure to respond to Bar Counsel's inquiries, even after she testified at the hearing that she was prepared to move forward, and her failure to inform Bar Counsel prior to the hearing that she had moved back to the District of Columbia. With respect to her testimony about her personal hardships, the committee found that such evidence might be mitigating if Ms. Lea had shown the chronological relationship between these unfortunate events and her non-cooperation, and if her period of non-cooperation had been relatively short. But this is not that case. After finding that Ms. Lea had violated Rule 8.1(b), Rule 8.4(d), and Rule XI, § 2(b)(3), the committee recommended the imposition of a fitness requirement. It concluded that her overall failure to respond to Bar Counsel's inquiries, the repetitive nature of her non-cooperation, and her failure to recognize the seriousness of her misconduct required that Ms. Lea prove fitness before she can be reinstated to the practice of law. The committee added that [h]er history as a scofflaw, actively avoiding service, the length of time and the number of requests made by Bar Counsel ... and her failure to appreciate the seriousness of her ethical obligations combine to raise a substantial doubt that her future conduct will be any better. [9] The Board adopted the hearing committee's recommendations, with one exception. The Board declined to recommend that Ms. Lea demonstrate fitness to practice law as a condition of reinstatement, and adheres to that position in its brief. Bar Counsel, on the other hand, urges us to follow the recommendation of the hearing committee and to require a showing of fitness.