Opinion ID: 2065798
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: proceedings before the hearing committee and the board

Text: On August 21, 2003, an Ad Hoc Hearing Committee held a hearing on Bar Counsel's complaint. As previously noted, Godette neither responded to the charges nor participated in any other way. The Committee made proposed findings of fact essentially identical to the findings subsequently adopted by the Board. The Committee also stated, however, that based on the record evidence, the Committee infers that Respondent evaded service of process, thereby causing Bar Counsel and the [c]ourt to expend additional resources to effectuate service of process through alternative means. The Committee found that Bar Counsel had established all three charges by clear and convincing evidence. The Hearing Committee recommended the same sanction that the Board later proposed, see pp. 1158-59, supra, except that the Committee suggested that Godette be required to complete twelve (rather than six) hours of CLE relating to legal ethics and professional responsibility. With apparent reluctance, the Hearing Committee rejected Bar Counsel's recommendation that Godette be required to prove fitness as a condition of reinstatement; the Committee apparently concluded that it was precluded by BPR precedent from proposing such a condition: We are mindful of cases cited by Bar Counsel stating that a fitness requirement would ordinarily be appropriate in a case such as this. See In re Hallmark, 831 A.2d 366, 376-77 (D.C.2003); In re Lockie, 649 A.2d 546, 547 (D.C. 1994); In re Steinberg, 761 A.2d 279 (D.C.2000). In light of Cater and Miller, however, we believe that a different result is dictated here. In re Cater, Bar Docket Nos. 337-99 et al.; In re Miller, Bar Docket No. 55-00. Bar Counsel excepted to the Hearing Committee's recommendation, urging that Godette be required to prove fitness as a condition of reinstatement; Godette filed no exceptions. The Board essentially adopted most of the Hearing Committee's findings, and proposed the same sanction as the Committee had suggested, except that it recommended that Godette be required to complete six (rather than twelve) hours of CLE. The Board declined to recommend a fitness requirement, however, because in its view there is not substantial evidence in the record to conclude that Respondent deliberately evaded service of process in this case. Absent that finding, the Board concludes that this is not an appropriate case for a fitness requirement. The Board elaborated in its Conclusions of Law: The Board certainly accepts the proposition that a finding of deliberate evasion of service of process in the disciplinary system, were it supported by substantial evidence, would be an important factor justifying the imposition of a fitness requirement in addition to a period of suspension. See, e.g., In re Wright, 702 A.2d 1251, 1253-54, 1257 (D.C.1997) (per curiam) (Attached Board Report); [In re] Delaney, 697 A.2d [1212,] 1213 n. 3 [(D.C.1997)]; see also In re Cater, Bar Docket Nos. 337-99 et al. at 30 (BPR June 26, 2003) (pending before the [c]ourt). In this case, however, the Board is unable to conclude that such a finding is supported by substantial evidence. As noted above, the Hearing Committee's conclusion that Respondent deliberately evaded service of process appears to be based on the affidavit of Mr. Piazza. There are, however, two difficulties with reliance on the Piazza affidavit to establish the point that Respondent deliberately evaded process. First, the Piazza affidavit, which was filed in conjunction with Bar Counsel's motion for an order of the Board directing a response to the ethical complaint, was not live testimony before the Board, and so the Hearing Committee had no occasion to probe Mr. Piazza's statement or to make an evaluation of his credibility. Second, in his affidavit, Mr. Piazza stated only that, on two occasions when he sought to serve process on Respondent personally, no one answered the door even though it sounded as though someone was home or that he heard noises from within the home. In our judgment, these statements are insufficient to establish that Respondent was inside the house at the time but failed to answer the door because he suspected the presence of a process server, or that someone acting at Respondent's direction declined to answer the door because he suspected that someone might be trying to serve process. The noises that Mr. Piazza heard inside the house might have been coming from a minor not authorized to accept service, someone who had no idea who was at the door and who declined to open the door to an unannounced stranger, or for aught we know, an animal. Perhaps this point might have been amplified had Mr. Piazza testified at the disciplinary hearing, but as noted, he did not do so. Once we put that finding by the Hearing Committee aside, the Board does not conclude that this case presents the kind of aggravated circumstances, especially in a first offense involving the failure to respond to a single ethical complaint, that would warrant a fitness requirement. While Respondent's failure to respond is serious, and warrants suspension, in our judgment it is not repeated or otherwise especially aggravated, and there are no other factors in the record that raise serious doubt about Respondent's fitness to practice law. Once again, Bar Counsel excepted to the Board's recommendation and asked that the court impose a fitness requirement; Godette filed no exception.