Court Opinion

ID: 9400419
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-08 14:03:52.411333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:45.074146
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-0243

                 IN RE CHRISTOPHER D. LIBERTELLI, RESPONDENT.

                          A Suspended Member of the Bar
                    of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
                           (Bar Registration No. 451341)

                          On Report and Recommendation
                    of the Board on Professional Responsibility
                      (BDN: 20-BD-050; DDN: 2019-D072)

                               (Decided June 8, 2023)

      Before BECKWITH, EASTERLY, and MCLEESE, Associate Judges.

      PER CURIAM: The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that

Christopher D. Libertelli be disbarred from the practice of law for flagrant

dishonesty. This court has previously concluded that disbarment is the appropriate

sanction for flagrant dishonesty. 1 Before the Board, respondent argued that his

      1
         In re White, 11 A.3d 1226, 1233 (D.C. 2011) (“Where this court has
concluded that the attorney’s conduct falls into a category of dishonesty of a flagrant
kind it has held disbarment to be the appropriate sanction.”); see also In re Howes,
52 A.3d 1, 15 (D.C. 2012) (“[W]here such dishonesty is aggravated and prolonged,
disbarment is the appropriate sanction.”); In re Corizzi, 803 A.2d 438, 443 (D.C.
2002) (imposing disbarment for dishonesty after attorney suborned perjury from two
of his clients and observing that the attorney need not financially benefit from the
                                           2

sanction should be mitigated based on In re Kersey, 520 A.2d 321 (D.C. 1987). The

Board concluded that he failed to establish two of the three factors required for

Kersey mitigation. 2 Respondent has not filed any exceptions 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 May 17, 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, disbarment is the

appropriate sanction for flagrant dishonesty, and respondent did not carry his burden

dishonesty in order to be disbarred); In re Goffe, 641 A.2d 458, 464 (D.C. 1994)
(imposing disbarment after attorney “repeated[ly] resort[ed] not only to false
testimony but to the actual manufacture and use of false documentary evidence in
official matters”).
      2
        See In re Schuman, 251 A.3d 1044, 1055 (D.C. 2021) (“In order to qualify
for a reduced sanction under the Kersey doctrine, an attorney must demonstrate (1)
by clear and convincing evidence that he had a disability; (2) by a preponderance of
the evidence that the disability substantially affected his misconduct; and (3) by clear
and convincing evidence that he has been substantially rehabilitated.” (internal
quotation marks omitted)).
                                           3

to establish the requirements for Kersey mitigation, we accept the recommendation

that respondent be disbarred.

      Accordingly, it is

      ORDERED that respondent Christopher D. Libertelli is hereby disbarred from

the practice of law in this jurisdiction. Respondent’s attention is directed to the

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

See D.C. Bar R. IX, § 16(c).

                                                                   So ordered.