Court Opinion

ID: 9379716
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-16 14:02:40.466251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:16.386109
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. 22-BG-0937

                  IN RE GEORGE W. CRAWFORD, II, RESPONDENT.

                         A Suspended Member of the Bar
                   of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
                          (Bar Registration No. 311639)

                          On Report and Recommendation
                    of the Board on Professional Responsibility

                                (DDN: 2013-D022)

                             (Decided March 16, 2023)

      Before EASTERLY and ALIKHAN, Associate Judges, and STEADMAN, Senior
Judge.

      PER CURIAM: The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that

respondent George W. Crawford, II, be suspended for six months from the practice

of law in this jurisdiction with reinstatement conditioned upon a showing of fitness,

the payment of any outstanding sanctions, and compliance with any pending court

orders. Mr. Crawford was charged with violating numerous Rules of Professional

Conduct arising from his failure to pay a judgment entered against him and to satisfy

a subsequent settlement agreement, which led to the imposition of sanctions and Mr.
                                          2

Crawford’s incarceration for his failure to purge a finding of civil contempt. Mr.

Crawford’s misconduct included violations of Rule 3.1 (defending a proceeding, and

asserting or controverting an issue therein, although there was no basis in law for

doing so that was not frivolous); Rule 3.3(a) (knowingly making false statements of

fact to a tribunal or failing to correct false statements of material fact previously

made to the tribunal); Rule 3.4(c) (knowingly disobeying an obligation under the

rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid

obligation exists); Rule 8.4(a) (violating or attempting to violate the Rules,

knowingly assisting or inducing another to do so, or doing so through the acts of

another); Rule 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or

misrepresentation); and Rule 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct that seriously interfered

with the administration of justice). Mr. Crawford has not filed any exception to the

Board’s Report and Recommendation, nor has he filed the required D.C. Bar R. XI,

§ 14(g) affidavit after the court imposed an interim suspension on February 15, 2023.

      Under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(h)(2), “if no exceptions are filed to the Board’s

report, the [c]ourt will enter an order imposing the discipline recommended by the

Board upon the expiration of the time permitted for filing exceptions.” Id.; see In re

Viehe, 762 A.2d 542, 543 (D.C. 2000) (“When . . . there are no exceptions to the

Board’s report and recommendation, our deferential standard of review becomes
                                           3

even more deferential.”). Because no exceptions have been filed, we accept the

Board’s recommendation of a six-month suspension with a fitness requirement for

Mr. Crawford’s misconduct. Thus we predicate Mr. Crawford’s reinstatement upon

a showing of fitness, the payment of any outstanding sanctions, and compliance with

pending court orders.

      Accordingly, it is ORDERED that respondent George W. Crawford, II, is

hereby suspended for six months from the practice of law in this jurisdiction and, as

a condition of reinstatement, he must establish fitness to practice law, and

demonstrate that he has paid any outstanding sanction awards and complied with

any pending court orders in First Washington Insurance Co. v. Kelly, No. 2007 CA

005890 B; Crawford v. First Washington Insurance Co., No. 2010 CA 006309 B;

and In re Crawford, No. 2012 CCC 022. Mr. Crawford’s attention is directed to the

requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14, and their effect on eligibility for reinstatement.

See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16(c).