Opinion ID: 2315153
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: introduction

Text: On October 17, 1990, the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board entered orders in two disciplinary proceedings involving Grant Paul Jones, a member of the Virginia Bar. In the first case (VSB Docket No. 89-070-0825), the Virginia Board found that Respondent had violated DR 6-101(B) by failing properly to handle a client's EEOC complaint that was filed late. The sanction imposed was an admonition without terms, which is comparable to an informal admonition in this jurisdiction. The second case (VSB Docket No. 87-070-1177) involved a more complex set of facts and a more severe sanction. There, the Virginia Board found that Respondent violated DR 7-103(A)(1) and (2) and DR 1-102(A)(3) and (4) while representing a defendant in a criminal case. The sanction imposed for this series of violations was a four-year suspension. The ordinary procedure in cases of this type is that when the District of Columbia Office of Bar Counsel receives certified copies of out-of-state disciplinary orders, it forwards that material to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. The Court then enters an order that might, in appropriate cases, immediately suspend the Respondent in this jurisdiction and refer the matter to us for a recommendation as to whether reciprocal discipline should be imposed. Although the Court entered no referral order in this case, we are considering the matter to be before us for action. [1] Under the provisions of Section 11 of Rule XI, we are required to recommend the imposition of reciprocal discipline unless a showing is made, by clear and convincing evidence, that one of the factors listed in Section 11 precludes that result. Paraphrasing the Rule, to avoid reciprocal discipline, the attorney must show that the foreign proceedings were procedurally defective, that there was an insufficiency of proof, that imposition of the same discipline here would result in grave injustice, that the misconduct found out-of-state would warrant substantially different discipline here, or that the misconduct out-of-state does not constitute misconduct here. Bar Counsel has filed a submission urging the imposition of reciprocal discipline, asserting that none of the preclusive Section 11 factors is present. We received from Respondent a copy of a document entitled Answer to Notice to Show Cause, the original of which was apparently filed in the United States Supreme Court in connection with disciplinary proceedings there. The gist of this rambling narrativewhich essentially admits the main facts on which the Virginia suspension was orderedis that the proceedings against Respondent were the result of a plot by certain Virginia government agencies to harass Respondent. The Board recommends imposition of reciprocal discipline, except that the suspension should be for only a one year period with a showing of fitness required for reinstatement. In reaching this result, we primarily considered the Virginia proceeding that led to Respondent's suspension, although we have taken the EEOC neglect case into account.