Court Opinion

ID: 9899195
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-16 15:04:58.542839+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:58.243603
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-0504

                    IN RE BRIAN DAVID O’NEILL, RESPONDENT.

                         A Suspended Member of the Bar
                   of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
                          (Bar Registration No. 1046680)

                          On Report and Recommendation
                    of the Board on Professional Responsibility

                               (DDN No. D211-22)

                          (Decided November 16, 2023)

      Before: BECKWITH, DEAHL, and SHANKER, Associate Judges.

      PER CURIAM: The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that

respondent, Brian David O’Neill, be disbarred from the practice of law after pleading

guilty to two counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C § 1343. This court has

previously concluded that wire fraud is a crime of moral turpitude per se.1

Respondent has not filed any exceptions to the Board’s Report and

      1
        See In re Bryant, 46 A.3d 402, 402 (D.C. 2012) (per curiam) (‘“[B]oth mail
fraud and wire fraud are crimes of moral turpitude per se.”’ (quoting In re Evans,
793 A.2d 468, 469 (D.C. 2002) (per curiam))).
                                          2

Recommendation, nor has he filed the required D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit

after the court imposed an interim suspension on June 23, 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.” See also 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

even more deferential.”). Because no exceptions have been filed and the conviction

is a crime of moral turpitude per se for which disbarment is required by D.C. Code

§ 11-2503(a), we accept the recommendation that respondent be disbarred.

         Accordingly, it is

         ORDERED that respondent is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in

this jurisdiction. Respondent’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).

                                                                  So ordered.