Opinion ID: 2326933
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Proceedings in This Jurisdiction

Text: On July 19, 2005, the District of Columbia Bar Counsel moved this Court to disbar Respondent by reciprocal discipline under D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 11. We entered an order suspending Respondent from the practice of law in this jurisdiction and directed the Board either to recommend the appropriate discipline based upon reciprocity or to proceed with this matter de novo. Declining to proceed de novo, the Board filed its December 28, 2005 Report and Recommendation with this court, urging us to disbar Respondent on the basis of Maryland's full adjudication and subsequent order of disbarment. See Board Report at 14 (We conclude that identical reciprocal discipline of disbarment is entirely appropriate). Citing In re Zdravkovich, 831 A.2d 964, 968 (D.C.2003), the Board noted that there is a rebuttable presumption in favor of the imposition of identical reciprocal discipline unless the court finds that one or more of the exceptions set forth in D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(c) applies. [8] See Board Report at 4-5. The Board rejected Respondent's argument that he was denied due process in the Maryland disciplinary proceedings, concluding that Respondent failed to show that he was denied notice or a meaningful opportunity to explain or defend against the allegations of misconduct. Id. at 6. The Board also rejected Respondent's claims as to infirmity of proof, concluding that there was more than sufficient evidence of misconduct, id. at 7, including misappropriation, dishonesty, and knowing omission of an asset from his client's schedule of assets filed in the bankruptcy court. The Board rejected Respondent's assertion that the problems in the bankruptcy proceeding arose from his failure to properly supervise an associate. [9] Id. at 9. The Board determined further that the Maryland Rules that Respondent was found to have violated are substantively similar to District of Columbia Rules, id., and that Respondent's misconduct in Maryland constitutes misconduct in the District of Columbia. Id. at 9, 10. The Board then turned to Respondent's argument that, in the District of Columbia, the misconduct found by the Maryland court would warrant discipline substantially different from disbarment. The Board concluded that [t]he sanction imposed in Maryland [disbarment] is precisely the sanction that would be imposed in the District of Columbia. Id. at 10 (citing In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190, 191 (D.C.1990)) (en banc) (in virtually all cases of misappropriation, disbarment will be the only appropriate action unless it appears that the misconduct resulted from nothing more than simple negligence). The Board rejected Respondent's argument that his disability warrants mitigation of the sanction in this jurisdiction even though such mitigation was denied by the Maryland court. Board Report at 11. The Board quoted the Maryland standard for mitigation articulated in Vanderlinde and then described the mitigation standard in this jurisdiction: [I]n the District of Columbia mitigation is warranted when the respondent establishes that (1) he suffered from an impairment at the time he misappropriated funds; (2) a preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that his impairment substantially caused him to engage in [the] misconduct; and (3) he is now substantially rehabilitated. Board Report at 12 (quoting from In re Stanback, 681 A.2d 1109, 1115 (D.C.1996)). The Board reasoned that [a]lthough the standard for disability in mitigation in the District of Columbia is different than the standard in Maryland, both jurisdictions require a showing that the disability caused the misconduct. Id. at 11. The Board concluded that [t]he Maryland Court's findings demonstrate that the record evidence failed to establish the requisite causal nexus between the disability and the violations under Kersey  that Respondent's psychological impairments `substantially caused him to engage in the misconduct.' Accordingly, Respondent is not entitled to Kersey mitigation for his intentional misappropriation and dishonesty. Id. at 12-13. [10]