Court Opinion

ID: 9901719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 15:02:14.645876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:38.130235
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-0915

In re JAMES C. BAILEY, ESQUIRE,

A Member of the Bar of the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals                 Board Docket No. 22-BD-037
Bar Registration No. 462391                           DDN: 2020-D006

BEFORE: McLeese and AliKhan, Associate Judges, and Thompson, Senior Judge.

                                     ORDER
                             (FILED – November 22, 2023)

      On consideration of the affidavit of James C. Bailey, Esquire, wherein he
consents to disbarment from the bar of the District of Columbia pursuant to D.C. Bar
Rule XI, §12, which has been filed with the Clerk of the Court, and the report and
recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility, it is

      ORDERED that James C. Bailey is hereby disbarred by consent.

       The Clerk shall publish this order, but the affidavit shall not be publicly disclosed
or otherwise made available except upon order of the court or upon written consent of
the respondent.

       The Clerk shall cause a copy of this order to be transmitted to the Chairperson
of the Board on Professional Responsibility and to the respondent, thereby giving him
notice of the provisions of Rule XI, §§ 14 and 16, which set forth certain rights and
responsibilities of disbarred attorneys and the effect of failure to comply therewith.

      In his affidavit consenting to disbarment, the respondent requests that “[his]
consent . . . be deemed effective retroactive to the date of the filing of the 14G
affidavit.” See BPR Report at 12. The respondent subsequently submitted a document
to the Board on Professional Responsibility titled Affidavit of Compliance with D.C.
Bar Rule XI, § 14. See id. at 3.

       Attorneys who have been disbarred must file an affidavit in compliance with the
requirements in D.C. Bar Rule XI, §14(g) “[w]ithin 10 days after the effective date of
an order of disbarment . . . with the Court and the Board” (emphasis added). Pursuant
to D.C. Bar Rule, XI, §14(f), “an order of disbarment shall be effective thirty days after
the entry of an order unless the court directs otherwise” (emphasis added). Therefore,
a compliant D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit ordinarily may only be filed after a
disciplinary order disbarring a respondent has been issued.

       Because bar disciplinary decisions become effective thirty days after the entry
of the decision, there is a presumption that disbarments will be prospective. See In re
Soininen, 853 A.2d 712, 726 (D.C. 2004). To overcome the presumption, a
respondent must “demonstrate the presence of ‘unique’ or ‘compelling’ circumstances
that would justify[ing] lessening what would otherwise be the sanction necessary to
protect the public interest.” Id.

      Respondent has not proffered any unique or compelling reasons why his
disbarment should be nunc pro tunc to October 18, 2023. The court therefore declines
respondent’s request for a retroactive disbarment. The court does, however, treat
respondent’s Rule 14(g) affidavit as having been filed on the date of this
order. Respondent’s disbarment thus becomes effective on the date of this order.

                                    PER CURIAM