Court Opinion

ID: 9405773
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-29 14:03:51.28187+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:24.265468
License: Public Domain

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic
and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of
any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go
to press.

             DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

                                  No. 23-BG-0484

                        IN RE MARY E. DAVIS, RESPONDENT.

                                A Member of the Bar
                             of the District of Columbia
                           (Bar Registration No. 385583)

                    On Report and Recommendation of the
        Board on Professional Responsibility Ad Hoc Hearing Committee
                     (Disciplinary Docket No. 2021-D078)
                        (Board Docket No. 22-ND-007)

                              (Decided: June 29, 2023)

      Before ALIKHAN and SHANKER, Associate Judges, and THOMPSON, Senior
Judge.

      PER CURIAM: This decision is non-precedential. Please refer to D.C. Bar R.

XI, § 12.1(d) regarding the appropriate citation of this opinion.

      In this matter, the Hearing Committee recommends approval of a petition for

negotiated attorney discipline. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(c). Respondent Mary E.

Davis voluntarily acknowledged that, in connection with her appointment as counsel

in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, she failed to obtain her client’s informed

consent regarding a conflict of interest, and that her conflicted representation
                                          2

(identified and remedied five years later during the Section 2255 appeal) seriously

interfered with the administration of justice. As a result, Ms. Davis admits that she

violated D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.7(b)(4) and 8.4(d). The proposed discipline

consists of a 30-day suspension, stayed in its entirety, with the conditions that she

not be the subject of a disciplinary complaint that results in a finding of misconduct

in this or any other jurisdiction for the nine-month period starting on June 21, 2022,

and that she take three hours of continuing legal education courses in legal ethics.

      Having reviewed the Hearing Committee’s recommendation in accordance

with our procedures in uncontested disciplinary cases, see D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(d),

we agree that this case is appropriate for negotiated discipline and that “the sanction

agreed upon is justified,” In re Mensah, 262 A.3d 1100, 1104 (D.C. 2021) (per

curiam) (quoting D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(c)(3)), given the sanctions we have

previously imposed for similar violations, see, e.g., In re Zipin, No. 20-BG-182,

2020 WL 1950497 (D.C. Apr. 23, 2020) (per curiam); In re Robbins, 192 A.3d 558

(D.C. 2018) (per curiam); In re Boykins, 748 A.2d 413 (D.C. 2000) (per curiam); see

also In re Mensah, 262 A.3d at 1104 (“[T]he sanctions imposed in negotiated-

discipline cases may in some cases be less stringent than would otherwise have been

appropriate in a contested-discipline case.”). Accordingly, it is
                                         3

      ORDERED that respondent Mary E. Davis is hereby suspended from the

practice of law in the District of Columbia for 30 days, stayed in its entirety, with

the following conditions (which the parties agree have already been satisfied):

      (i)    Respondent shall not be the subject of a disciplinary complaint that

             results in a finding of misconduct in this or any other jurisdiction for

             the nine-month period starting on June 21, 2022; and

      (ii)   Respondent shall take three hours of continuing legal education courses

             in legal ethics.

                                                                 So ordered.