Court Opinion

ID: 9556442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-17 14:05:07.419076+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:26.214207
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. 19-BG-0702

                       IN RE JINHEE K. WILDE, RESPONDENT.

                         A Suspended Member of the Bar
                   of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
                          (Bar Registration No. 436659)

                          On Report and Recommendation
                    of the Board on Professional Responsibility
                       (Disciplinary Docket No. 2009-D244)
                           (Board Docket No. 14-BD-67)

(Argued June 25, 2020                                     Decided August 17, 2023)

      Michael L. Rowan for appellant.

       Julia L. Porter, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, with whom Hamilton P.
Fox, III, Disciplinary Counsel, and Myles V. Lynk, Senior Assistant Disciplinary
Counsel, were on the brief, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

      Before BECKWITH and EASTERLY, Associate Judges, and GLICKMAN, ∗ Senior
Judge.

      BECKWITH, Associate Judge: The District of Columbia Board on Professional

      ∗
       Judge Glickman was an Associate Judge at the time of argument. His status
changed to Senior Judge on December 21, 2022.
                                         2

Responsibility (the Board) recommended that Ms. Jinhee Wilde be disbarred after a

South Korean court convicted her of larceny. The Incheon District Court in Incheon,

South Korea found Ms. Wilde guilty of stealing $1,100 from another passenger on

her flight to South Korea. The D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel (at the time

called Office of Bar Counsel) instituted proceedings against Ms. Wilde for violating

eight Rules of Professional Conduct related to theft, fraud, forgery, making false

statements, and uttering false evidence.       An Ad Hoc Hearing Committee

recommended disbarment after finding by clear and convincing evidence that Ms.

Wilde had committed theft and forgery, but it declined to find that she engaged in

fraud.       The Board adopted the Hearing Committee’s findings of fact and

recommended disbarment.

         Both Disciplinary Counsel and Ms. Wilde filed exceptions to the Board’s

report and recommendation. 1 Ms. Wilde contends that the Hearing Committee and

the Board should have given preclusive effect to a Maryland Circuit Court judgment

that found that Ms. Wilde neither committed the theft nor forged documents. She

also challenges, on various grounds, the Board’s adoption of the Hearing

Committee’s findings of fact. Finally, she argues that the Board should have

        After an order to show cause, this court suspended Ms. Wilde from the
         1

practice of law in the District of Columbia pending final disposition of this
proceeding. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g).
                                         3

recommended a less severe sanction than disbarment. We conclude that the Hearing

Committee was not required to give preclusive effect to the Maryland judgment; and

because we are not persuaded by Ms. Wilde’s additional arguments, we agree with

the Board’s recommendation and disbar Ms. Wilde from the practice of law in the

District of Columbia.

      Disciplinary Counsel argues that the Board incorrectly determined that Ms.

Wilde had committed only one of the three criminal acts charged under Rule 8.4(b).

Specifically, the Board concluded that Ms. Wilde had committed theft, but that

Disciplinary Counsel failed to prove that she had committed fraud or forgery in

violation of D.C. law. We agree that the evidence established that Ms. Wilde

committed all three criminal acts. Because the Board found disbarment appropriate

based on the theft and conduct after the theft, however, we need not depart from its

recommendation.

                            I. Factual Background

      Ms. Wilde joined the District of Columbia Bar in 1993 while remaining a

member of the Maryland Bar. She practiced immigration law with Christopher

Teras at Teras & Wilde, PLLC, from October 2004 to January 2009.

      In May 2007, Ms. Wilde traveled to Incheon, South Korea, for Teras & Wilde
                                          4

business. Erica Yoon was a passenger on Ms. Wilde’s flight. Ms. Yoon testified

before the Hearing Committee that during the flight, a flight attendant woke her and

alerted her that the attendant had witnessed Ms. Wilde going through Ms. Yoon’s

purse while Ms. Yoon was sleeping. Ms. Yoon testified that she boarded the flight

with at least $1,500 in cash but only four $100 bills remained in her wallet at that

point. The four bills in Ms. Yoon’s wallet all had a serial number beginning

“FL171737.” Ms. Yoon testified that after she and the flight attendant confronted

Ms. Wilde, the in-flight purser, Sang Hoon Kim, examined the money in Ms.

Wilde’s envelope and stated that the serial numbers for some of the bills in the

envelope were sequential to those in Ms. Yoon’s wallet.

      Upon arrival in Incheon, police officers took Ms. Wilde and Ms. Yoon to the

police station in the airport terminal. Police informed Ms. Wilde of the in-flight

purser’s finding, and Ms. Wilde provided a sworn statement. The police also

photocopied the bills and listed each serial number on a seizure report.

                             II. Procedural History

                            A.      Theft Conviction

      Ms. Wilde was charged with theft in the Incheon District Court and when she

failed to appear, the court entered a default decision against her. Two months later,
                                          5

Ms. Wilde filed a motion for a formal trial after learning of the default decision. The

court granted her motion, held a trial, and, after considering documentary evidence

presented by Ms. Wilde, found her guilty of theft.          Ms. Wilde appealed her

conviction to the Incheon District Court of Criminal Appeals, arguing that the trial

court made a mistake of fact. Ms. Wilde and the prosecuting attorney were permitted

to call witnesses and present documentary evidence during the appeal.

      While Ms. Wilde’s appeal was pending in the Incheon appellate court,

Maryland’s Attorney Grievance Commission (AGC) initiated proceedings against

Ms. Wilde based on the theft and alleged that she had forged bank documents that

she presented to the Incheon District Court. The Montgomery County Circuit Court

in Maryland ultimately concluded that Ms. Wilde had not committed theft or forgery.

Based on the Maryland court’s decision, Ms. Wilde argued that the Incheon appellate

court should reverse her conviction. The Incheon appellate court declined to defer

to the Maryland court’s decision and dismissed Ms. Wilde’s appeal after finding that

her arguments were without merit.

            B.      Documents Presented to Incheon District Court

      Ms. Wilde proffered a number of documents to the Incheon District Court

during her criminal prosecution. These included an undated Commerce Bank
                                          6

document listing serial numbers of bills withdrawn by Ms. Wilde; a February 15,

2008, letter with the same list; a May 5, 2008, letter from a bank employee describing

how he compiled the list of serial numbers; an August 25, 2008, letter informing Ms.

Wilde that the bank could not provide records to the Incheon District Court; a

December 19, 2008, letter including bank records; a collection of letters from Senior

Counsel at Commerce Bank regarding Ms. Wilde’s case; and a check sent to Ms.

Yoon. For ease of reference, as these documents formed the basis of the rule

violations charged against Ms. Wilde before us here, our description of the

documents’ role in the Incheon criminal case will also note significant related

evidence that was subsequently presented to the Hearing Committee in the present

disciplinary matter.

             1. Undated Document and List of Serial Numbers

      Ms. Wilde submitted an undated document that stated, “Please note that

Jinhee Wilde of Teras & Wilde, PLLC, withdrew $1000 worth of 100 bills from

Dupont Circle Branch” and listed the serial numbers that Ms. Wilde allegedly

withdrew. The document was not on bank letterhead and was purportedly signed by

Brian Vinson, a customer service representative at Commerce Bank’s Dupont Circle

location.

      During Ms. Wilde’s D.C. disciplinary proceedings, Mr. Vinson testified that
                                           7

he provided a “verification” of the serial numbers for currency Ms. Wilde withdrew,

but also testified that he didn’t “actually” remember providing Ms. Wilde with a list

of serial numbers, that he did not recognize the documents, and that he could only

have prepared such a verification if the money was actually in front of him. 2 And

testimony from bank employees indicated that the bank labeled its separate locations

as “stores,” not “branches.” For her part, Ms. Wilde testified that she created the list

because of her “woman’s intuition” and that she had made similar currency lists “[a]

couple of [other] times.”

                            2. February 15, 2008, Letter

      Ms. Wilde also submitted to the criminal court a letter dated February 15,

2008, with the same list of serial numbers as the undated document, bearing Mr.

Vinson’s signature and raised notary seal and the signature of Roxy Angha, another

bank employee and a D.C. notary. Both the undated list and the February 15 letter’s

list contained the serial number FL17173756C, which corresponded with one of the

four bills that remained in Ms. Yoon’s wallet and failed to include the serial number

of one of the bills seized from Ms. Wilde, namely FL17173765C. Ms. Angha later

testified to the Hearing Committee that she did not sign the February 15, 2008, letter

      2
       Due to these discrepancies, the Hearing Committee described Mr. Vinson’s
testimony as “in some respects confusing.”
                                           8

and that it was a “forged and fraudulent document.”

                             3. May 5, 2008, Letter

      The May 5, 2008, letter Ms. Wilde submitted purported to respond to a letter

she had previously sent to Mr. Vinson on April 30, 2008, requesting that Mr. Vinson

verify how he created the list of serial numbers and requesting information about

whether Ms. Yoon was a client of the bank. The signatures of Mr. Vinson and Carlos

Gomez, a Teras & Wilde employee and a notary, appeared on the letter.

      Mr. Gomez testified to the Hearing Committee that he did not notarize the

letter, did not recognize the letter, and was unfamiliar with Mr. Vinson. Mr. Vinson

additionally testified that he never received the April 30 letter, that he did not sign

the May 5 response letter, and that he would not have made the representations in

the May 5 letter, including the letter’s statement that Ms. Yoon was not a client of

the bank.

                           4. August 25, 2008, Letter

      Ms. Wilde also submitted a letter dated August 25, 2008, from the bank that

purported to respond to a letter she sent to Mr. Vinson in June 2008 relaying that the

Incheon District Court wanted to see the “actual[] . . . bank books” to verify the serial

numbers listed in the February 15 letter. The August 25 letter stated that the bank
                                         9

was “not able to comply” with the request due to “federal regulations” and “the

[Incheon District Court] judge’s continued questioning of the veracity of the

notarized, sworn statements we provided, in two separate occasions, clearly shows

his bias for the prosecution,” and the bank was “deeply offended by this judge’s

implication that our bank employees would lie about our transactional records.” The

letter bore the signature of “David Chaulker,” noted his title as “Vice President and

General Manager,” and copied “Chief Legal Counsel” Stephanie Tejum.

      Testifying to the Hearing Committee, a bank employee named David Chalker

confirmed the misspelling of his last name in the letter, denied writing the letter,

clarified that the title of his position was “Bank Vice President and Store Manager,”

and stated that he did not know anybody by the name of Stephanie Tejum.

                        5. December 19, 2008, Letter

      The second Chalker letter Ms. Wilde submitted to the Incheon court, dated

December 19, 2008, included attachments purporting to be bank records. This letter

used the same signature block as the August 25 letter, including the misspelling of

Mr. Chalker’s name and the incorrect reference to his title and to the Dupont Circle

store as a “Branch.” The letter stated that Mr. Chalker would leave his position in

December 2008. Mr. Chalker later told the Hearing Committee that he had nothing

to do with the letter or the attached records and that he did not leave the Dupont
                                          10

Circle location until May 2012.

             6. Letters from Senior Counsel at Commerce Bank

      Ms. Wilde submitted five letters purportedly from Christopher Tucci, Senior

Counsel at the bank. Mr. Tucci testified in a video deposition that he had nothing to

do with the letters. Outside counsel to the bank, Robert Dietrick, also testified at the

hearing committee that there were no letters from Mr. Tucci and that the letters Ms.

Wilde presented as Mr. Tucci’s contained several representations that the bank

would not make.

                                    7. Checks

      After learning about Ms. Wilde’s criminal proceedings in South Korea,

Christopher Teras—her law partner—informed her that he wanted to dissolve their

law firm. Around six months later, Ms. Yoon’s son and two other individuals

received suspicious checks from Mr. Teras’s employment recruiting company,

Worldwide Personnel, Inc. Ms. Yoon’s son received a $10,000 check addressed to

Ms. Yoon from Worldwide and signed by Mr. Teras. The check’s memo line stated

that it was for the “JHW case.” Ms. Wilde submitted this check as evidence in her

criminal appeal in the Incheon District Court and argued that Ms. Yoon and Mr.

Teras had conspired against her. Mr. Teras testified to the Hearing Committee that

he did not send the check or authorize anyone to sign the check.
                                         11

      Around the same time, Nancy Garland Miller, the outside bookkeeper for

Worldwide and Founder and President of the Combat Soldiers Recovery Fund

charity, also received a check made out to the charity from Mr. Teras. Ms. Garland

Miller testified that in July 2009, she received a check from Mr. Teras “out of the

blue” that she was “shocked” to have received because she was “in conversation

with [Mr. Teras] all the time” and knew that Mr. Teras was “having financial

problems.” She testified that she called Mr. Teras, who told her that he knew nothing

about the check. Mr. Teras also testified that he did not authorize the check.

      Theodore Kim, a consultant for Worldwide, received the third check. Mr.

Kim testified that he had an agreement with Mr. Teras to be paid $1,000 per month

for his advice, but that he received a check for $5,000 in July 2009 and contacted

Mr. Teras to thank him for the payment. Mr. Teras testified that he did not

understand why Mr. Kim was thanking him for the check until a month later, when

he realized that the check was for $5,000, at which point Mr. Teras asked Mr. Kim

to pay him back. Mr. Teras further testified that although the check was addressed

to “Theodore U.C. Kim,” Mr. Teras did not normally include Mr. Kim’s middle

initials, and Disciplinary Counsel entered as exhibits examples of other checks

signed by Mr. Teras that did not include Mr. Kim’s middle initials.

      Teras & Wilde employed an in-house bookkeeper, Emily Staats, who also
                                        12

worked for Worldwide. Ms. Staats testified to the Hearing Committee that there was

one set of keys to the file cabinet where the Worldwide checks were kept and that if

Mr. Teras and Ms. Staats were both out, she would “[p]robably” leave the keys with

Ms. Wilde. Mr. Teras and Ms. Staats testified that Mr. Teras would sign the

Worldwide checks in blank so that Ms. Staats could make payments in his absence.

         C.      Disciplinary Proceedings in the District of Columbia

      Disciplinary Counsel filed a petition with this court requesting that Ms. Wilde

be suspended from the practice of law pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 10 based on her

conviction for theft in South Korea. This court ultimately ruled that a foreign

conviction will not justify automatic discipline under § 10, but concluded that a

foreign conviction might have collateral estoppel effect in an original discipline

proceeding under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 8. In re Wilde (In re Wilde I), 68 A.3d 749, 766

(D.C. 2013).

      After this court decided In re Wilde I, Disciplinary Counsel initiated an

original proceeding against Ms. Wilde under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 8 and charged her

with violating the following Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 3.3(a)(1)

(knowingly making false statements of fact to a tribunal); Rule 3.3(a)(4) (knowingly

offering evidence she knew to be false); Rule 3.4(b) (falsifying evidence); Rule
                                        13

8.1(a) and (b) (making false statements of fact in connection with a disciplinary

matter); Rule 8.4(b) (committing theft in violation of D.C. and South Korean law,

committing fraud in violation of D.C. law, and committing forgery in violation of

D.C. law); Rule 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving fraud, deceit,

misrepresentation, or dishonesty); and Rule 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct interfering

with the administration of justice).

      Ms. Wilde filed a motion to preclude the misconduct charges based on

collateral estoppel due to the outcome of the Maryland proceedings. The Maryland

court had found that Ms. Yoon’s testimony regarding the theft was incredible

because she could not “keep her story straight,” 3 that the South Korean police

“neither photocopied the bills seized from Wilde nor created a complete list of the

bills’ serial numbers,” and that Ms. Wilde did not forge the undated list of serial

numbers or the bank letters. The Maryland court described Mr. Vinson’s testimony

as “cagy” and found Mr. Chalker’s testimony to be “neither accurate nor truthful.”

Regarding Mr. Chalker in particular, the Maryland court concluded that he “testified

falsely to [the] court about his role because he knew that his conduct violated bank

      3
         Ms. Yoon testified to the Hearing Committee that she testified in Maryland
over telephone and was not provided a translator during the call.
                                         14

policy.” 4 The D.C. Hearing Committee denied the motion on the ground that the

District of Columbia was not a party to the Maryland proceedings. 5

      The Hearing Committee heard testimony from 20 witnesses over seven days.

Ms. Yoon gave in-person testimony to the Hearing Committee with a translator.

Disciplinary Counsel and Ms. Wilde together submitted well over 100 exhibits,

including information not presented to the Maryland court, like the Tucci letters, the

Worldwide checks, and photocopies that South Korean police took of both Ms.

Wilde’s seized bills and Ms. Yoon’s seized bills, along with the police’s seizure

report listing the serial numbers of the bills seized from Ms. Wilde.

      The Hearing Committee concluded that Ms. Wilde committed most of the rule

violations with which she was charged. 6 The Hearing Committee determined that

Ms. Wilde committed the theft, finding Ms. Yoon’s testimony credible.             The

      4
       The Maryland court was not presented with the Tucci letters or the
Worldwide checks.

      5
       In its final Report and Recommendation, the Hearing Committee stated that
while it took the Maryland proceedings into consideration, it received “more
evidence” than the Maryland court, including witnesses who did not testify in
Maryland.

      6
        The Hearing Committee concluded that there was no clear and convincing
evidence that Ms. Wilde committed criminal fraud under Rule 8.4(b).
                                          15

Committee also found that Ms. Wilde had forged the undated list of serial numbers,

noting that her credibility was undermined by her failure to provide the undated list

to the police and her inability to articulate a reason beyond “woman’s intuition” for

making the list in the first place. The Hearing Committee also determined that Ms.

Wilde forged all of the bank employee letters because each purported signatory and

notary credibly testified that they did not authorize or have anything to do with the

letters, and the letters contained numerous irregularities, including misspelled

names, incorrect titles, and inaccurate references to the Dupont Circle store as the

Dupont Circle “branch.” Finally, the Committee concluded that Ms. Wilde forged

the Worldwide checks, noting that she had access to the checks, that Mr. Teras said

he did not authorize any of the checks, and that all of the recipients found the checks

perplexing and ultimately returned them to Mr. Teras. The Hearing Committee

recommended a sanction of disbarment after determining that the mitigating factors,

including Ms. Wilde’s lack of prior discipline, did not outweigh her dishonesty and

lack of remorse.

      Before the Board, Ms. Wilde took exception to the Hearing Committee’s

findings and recommendation.         Disciplinary Counsel took exception to the

Committee’s conclusion that Ms. Wilde had not committed fraud under D.C. law.

The Board found that neither party’s objections had merit. The Board agreed with

the Hearing Committee’s determination that Disciplinary Counsel was not in privity
                                       16

with the Maryland AGC, noting that no evidence in the record suggested that

Disciplinary Counsel participated in the Maryland proceedings and that the Hearing

Committee was presented with “more and different evidence” than the Maryland

court. The Board adopted the Hearing Committee’s findings and conclusions,

except as to Rule 8.4(b). While the Board found that there was “overwhelming

evidence that [Ms. Wilde] created false and fraudulent documents and used those

documents to attempt to defeat the South Korean prosecution,” it concluded that

Disciplinary Counsel failed to demonstrate that Ms. Wilde’s course of conduct

occurred “within the District’s boundaries,” a necessary element of D.C. fraud and

forgery laws. The Board thus determined that she violated Rule 8.4(b) only by

committing the theft.

              III. Ms. Wilde’s Exceptions to the Board’s Report

      Ms. Wilde argues that (1) the Maryland court’s decision precluded the

Hearing Committee’s and the Board’s conclusions, (2) the Hearing Committee and

the Board should have deferred to the Maryland court’s factual findings, (3) the

Hearing Committee improperly admitted the Incheon District Court transcripts, and

(4) the Hearing Committee’s and the Board’s factual findings are unsupported by

substantial evidence.
                                         17

                           A.      Collateral Estoppel

      Ms. Wilde primarily argues that the Hearing Committee and the Board should

have given preclusive effect to the Maryland court’s conclusion that she did not

commit theft or forgery. Disciplinary Counsel argues that Ms. Wilde waived her

collateral estoppel argument because she did not raise it in her post-hearing brief to

the Hearing Committee. Even assuming that Ms. Wilde properly preserved this

argument, collateral estoppel does not apply here.

      This court reviews the Board’s legal conclusions, including whether the

requirements of collateral estoppel were met, de novo. In re Robbins, 192 A.3d 558,

565 (D.C. 2018); In re Vohra, 68 A.3d 766, 769 (D.C. 2013). The doctrine of

collateral estoppel “renders conclusive an issue of fact or law essential to a

determination where there has been a final judgment on the merits that has been

actually litigated by the same parties or their privies.” In re Robbins, 192 A.3d at

565. The key question in this case is whether Disciplinary Counsel and the Maryland

AGC were in privity.

      “Privies are sometimes described as ‘those who control an action although not

parties to it; those whose interests are represented by a party to an action; and

successors in interest.’” Id. at 565-66 (quoting Carr v. Rose, 701 A.2d 1065, 1075
                                           18

(D.C. 1997)). When this court in In Re Robbins addressed the question whether

Disciplinary Counsel was in privity with its corresponding disciplinary entity in

Virginia, the Virginia Bar Counsel, we concluded that privity must be analyzed on

a case-by-case basis to assess the level of involvement Disciplinary Counsel had in

the other jurisdiction’s disciplinary proceeding. 7 Id. at 566. In In re Robbins, the

court concluded that Disciplinary Counsel was not in privity with the Virginia Bar

Counsel because there was “no evidence that Disciplinary Counsel participated in

the Virginia proceedings or coordinated with Virginia’s Bar Counsel to present

consistent arguments.” Id. We noted, too, that it was “especially significant” that

the Virginia court “reli[ed] on an inferior record”—the Hearing Committee in

      7
        Ms. Wilde additionally argues that this court should reject the case-by-case
approach of In re Robbins and conclude that Disciplinary Counsel and the Maryland
AGC are necessarily privies because collateral estoppel is “systematically . . .
applied in reciprocal discipline cases.” While this court has permitted Disciplinary
Counsel to wield foreign convictions against a respondent, such use of offensive
non-mutual collateral estoppel requires that the respondent against whom estoppel
is invoked (that is, the original defendant or a privy) must have had a “full and fair
opportunity for litigation.” In re Wilde, 68 A.3d at 759 (internal quotation marks
omitted) (quoting Modiri v. 1342 Rest. Grp., Inc., 904 A.2d 391, 394 (D.C. 2006)).
In Ms. Wilde’s case, defensive non-mutual collateral estoppel does not permit her to
use a prior resolved issue as a shield against Disciplinary Counsel if it was not a
party or privy to the original proceedings. Cf. Walker v. FedEx Off. & Print Servs.,
Inc., 123 A.3d 160, 164 (D.C. 2015) (noting that defensive collateral estoppel may
be invoked by any defendant, even one not party to the original proceedings, if the
party against whom collateral estoppel is invoked (the original plaintiff or a privy)
had “a full and fair opportunity to litigate” the issue in the prior proceeding (internal
quotation marks omitted) (quoting Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153-54
(1979))).
                                          19

District of Columbia heard from live witnesses, whereas the Virginia court based its

decision on a cold record. See id. We also acknowledged that the Virginia court

“offered no analysis” to support its findings. Id.

      In Ms. Wilde’s case, the Hearing Committee and the Board correctly

concluded that Disciplinary Counsel and the Maryland AGC were not privies. The

Board concluded that “[t]here is no evidence in the record that Disciplinary Counsel

participated in the Maryland proceedings.” Giving preclusive effect to the Maryland

decision would therefore have been inappropriate. Ms. Wilde asserts, but without

record citation, that “Disciplinary Counsel requested permission of the Board to

share its file with Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland and said request

was granted by Order dated December 7, 2010.” This court cannot locate any such

order in the record. 8 We therefore reject Ms. Wilde’s contention that the Hearing

Committee and the Board should have given preclusive effect to the result of the

Maryland case. 9

      8
        Sharing this file alone would not necessarily lead to a finding of privity when
evidentiary discrepancies between the Maryland court and Hearing Committee
proceedings indicate that the Maryland AGC did not adequately represent
Disciplinary Counsel’s interests. See In re Robbins, 192 A.3d at 565-66.

      9
       Even if Disciplinary Counsel and the Maryland AGC were in privity, the
Hearing Committee resolved several issues that the Maryland court did not,
                                          20

              B.      Deference to the Maryland Court’s Decision

      Ms. Wilde also argues that, even if collateral estoppel does not give the

Maryland decision preclusive effect, the Hearing Committee and the Board should

have deferred to the Maryland court’s factual findings.

      Generally, “[w]e defer to findings of fact made by other courts in reciprocal

proceedings.” In re Gallagher, 886 A.2d 64, 66 (D.C. 2005). Deference to other

courts’ discipline determinations is warranted because “there is merit in according

deference, for its own sake, to the actions of other jurisdictions with respect to the

attorneys over whom we share supervisory authority.” In re Zdravkovich, 831 A.2d

964, 969 (D.C. 2003) (citing In re Velasquez, 507 A.2d 145, 147 (D.C. 1986)). Thus,

deference may be appropriate even when collateral estoppel is not. See, e.g., In re

Robbins, 192 A.3d at 566 n.7 (noting that while the Virginia decision was not entitled

to preclusive effect, that “d[id] not mean that we will not defer to final decisions in

other jurisdictions’ disciplinary proceedings”).

      Ms. Wilde argues that the Hearing Committee and the Board should always

including whether Ms. Wilde forged the Worldwide checks and the Tucci letters,
thus calling into question whether giving collateral estoppel effect to the Maryland
proceeding would relieve Ms. Wilde from discipline.
                                         21

defer to findings of fact made by sister jurisdictions, regardless of whether that

jurisdiction imposed discipline. But she does not cite any authority requiring such

deference outside of a reciprocal discipline proceeding, see D.C. Bar R. XI § 11, and

we are unpersuaded that deference was required under these circumstances, much

less in every nonreciprocal discipline cases.

      In Ms. Wilde’s case, the Hearing Committee and the Board considered the

findings made by the Maryland court and specified that they departed from those

findings because the Hearing Committee “was presented with more evidence than

that which had been submitted in the Maryland proceeding, including the testimony

of witnesses who did not testify in Maryland.” The Maryland court published a

sixteen-page opinion that had few citations and misstated several key facts. Such

circumstances highlight why we are not persuaded that deference in all

nonreciprocal discipline cases is appropriate.

                   C.      Incheon District Court Transcripts

      Ms. Wilde also challenges the Hearing Committee’s admission of transcripts

from the Incheon District Court criminal proceedings, arguing that they were

“unreliable and not on par with transcription requirements in the United States” and

that they “contain[ed] hearsay within hearsay.”
                                         22

      The Hearing Committee may admit any evidence that is “relevant, not

privileged, and not merely cumulative.”       Board Prof. Resp. R. 11.3.      It may

additionally be “guided by, but shall not be bound by the provisions or rules of court

practice, procedure, pleading, or evidence.” Id. For this reason, this court has

concluded that the Hearing Committee may consider hearsay evidence. See In re

Kennedy, 605 A.2d 600, 603 (D.C. 1992). Although disciplinary proceedings are

not bound by evidentiary rules, they are nevertheless “adversary, adjudicatory

proceedings” and “due process safeguards must be observed.” In re Thorup, 432

A.2d 1221, 1225 (D.C. 1981) (citing In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544 (1968)). As the

Incheon District Court transcripts were undoubtedly relevant, the issue is whether

admitting the transcripts violated Ms. Wilde’s due process rights.

      Ms. Wilde first argues that the Hearing Committee should not have admitted

the transcripts because they were not prepared in accordance with U.S. standards.

Specifically, she argues that in South Korea witness examinations are transcribed

word for word “as much as possible”; that statements by the judge may not be

transcribed word-for-word, depending on the content of the judge’s statement; that

the prosecutor’s arguments may be summarized; and that objections in the transcript

“may not be the exact words.” Ms. Wilde also argues that the transcripts contain

double hearsay, which “cannot be considered as meeting any test of reliability.”
                                          23

      Ms. Wilde’s contentions fail because she has not pointed to any concrete

unfairness in the Hearing Committee’s admission of the evidence in this case.

Though she has drawn the court’s attention to some differences between the South

Korean and U.S. methods for transcribing criminal proceedings, she does not

articulate how any of these differences resulted in a due process violation. Ms.

Wilde does not point to any instance where information is missing from the

transcripts due to the South Korean transcription procedures, undercutting any

inference that the Hearing Committee used the transcripts to resolve issues against

Ms. Wilde without knowing all the facts. There is also no indication that the Hearing

Committee unduly relied on the Incheon District Court transcripts in drawing its

conclusions about Ms. Wilde’s misconduct, and in fact it relied primarily upon Ms.

Yoon’s live testimony and the unobjected-to South Korean police reports, exhibits,

and investigation in concluding that Ms. Wilde committed the theft. Ms. Wilde is

also concerned that witnesses in the Incheon District Court criminal trial testified to

the actions and statements of the in-flight purser who initially wrote down the serial

numbers on Ms. Yoon’s and Ms. Wilde’s bills. But there is no indication that the

testifying witnesses inaccurately relayed the actions or statements of the purser or

that the Hearing Committee unduly relied on the purser’s statements or actions to

conclude that Ms. Wilde committed the theft.

      For these reasons, we conclude that the Hearing Committee was permitted to
                                        24

admit the relevant, nonprivileged, and noncumulative Incheon District Court

transcripts under Board Rule 11.3 and that their admission did not violate Ms.

Wilde’s due process rights.

                              D.   Factual Findings

      Ms. Wilde makes two interrelated challenges to the Hearing Committee’s

findings of fact. She argues that the Hearing Committee made flawed credibility

determinations and that the Board should not have incorporated and adopted the

Hearing Committee’s findings that she committed theft, forged documents, and

forged checks because they were not supported by substantial evidence. 10

      “In disciplinary cases, the Board must accept the Hearing Committee’s

evidentiary findings, including credibility findings, if they are supported by

substantial evidence in the record.” In re Cleaver-Bascombe (Cleaver-Bascombe I),

892 A.2d 396, 401 (D.C. 2006)). “This court, in turn, must accept the Board’s

findings of fact, and we also apply the ‘substantial evidence’ standard.”     Id.

“Substantial evidence means evidence that a reasonable person would consider

adequate to support a conclusion.” Furtick v. D.C. Dep’t of Emp. Servs., 921 A.2d

      10
         Ms. Wilde does not challenge the Hearing Committee and the Board’s
conclusions regarding false statements that she made to the Disciplinary Counsel.
                                         25

787, 790 (D.C. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Wash. Post v. D.C.

Dep’t of Emp. Servs., 853 A.2d 704, 706 (D.C. 2004)).

      In this case, substantial evidence supports the Hearing Committee’s

credibility findings that the Board later adopted. Ms. Wilde alleges that the Hearing

Committee and the Board failed to resolve various inconsistencies and uncertainties

in her favor, as the Maryland court did. 11 But the Hearing Committee and the Board

were not required to accept Ms. Wilde’s version of the story. Notably, doing so

would have required them not only to discredit most of the witnesses—including

Ms. Yoon, Mr. Teras, all of the bank employees, and neutral witnesses such as Ms.

Staats and Mr. Gomez—but to determine that a number of them were lying under

oath. 12 We are required to “place great weight on credibility determinations made

by the Board and the Hearing Committee because of the Hearing Committee’s

unique opportunity to observe the witnesses and assess their demeanor.” In re

Klayman, 282 A.3d 584, 593 (D.C. 2022) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks

      11
         For example, Ms. Wilde takes issue with the Hearing Committee’s failure
to “hone[] in” on the bank employees’ motive to lie about whether they had
authorized bank documents that contained illegal representations not compliant with
bank policy.

      12
         In fact, the Maryland court was only able to find in Ms. Wilde’s favor after
it found several key witnesses, including Ms. Yoon, Mr. Vinson, and Mr. Chalker,
incredible.
                                         26

omitted) (quoting In re Pearson, 228 A.3d 417, 423 (D.C. 2020)). This court

therefore declines Ms. Wilde’s invitation to reweigh the credibility determinations

made after the witnesses testified before the Hearing Committee. See In re Pye, 57

A.3d 960, 973 (D.C. 2012).

      Substantial evidence also supports the Hearing Committee’s and the Board’s

findings that Ms. Wilde committed theft, forged documents, and forged the

Worldwide checks. As to the theft, the record contains Ms. Yoon’s testimony about

the theft, witness statements from the South Korean police investigation, and

photocopies of the remaining bills in Ms. Yoon’s purse with sequential numbering

to the bills in Ms. Wilde’s possession. All this more than surpasses the substantial

evidence standard. Disciplinary Counsel also presented substantial evidence that

Ms. Wilde forged bank documents. 13 Testimony from the purported signers and

notaries of every letter—Ms. Angha, Mr. Vinson, Mr. Gomez, Mr. Chalker, and Mr.

Tucci—indicated that they were in no way involved with the creation of any of the

bank letters. Several irregularities in the letters further bolstered the finding: the

letters misspelled names and included incorrect titles for Mr. Vinson and Mr.

Chalker, referred to the Dupont Circle store as the Dupont Circle “Branch” on

      13
         Ms. Wilde does not explicitly challenge the Hearing Committee’s
conclusions that Ms. Wilde forged five letters from Christopher Tucci, Senior
Counsel at the bank.
                                         27

multiple occasions despite several witnesses stating that the bank labeled each

individual location as a “store,” relayed information that the employees would not

have been permitted to share such as Ms. Yoon’s membership status at the bank, and

listed the serial number of one of the bills which remained in Ms. Yoon’s wallet after

the theft.

       Finally, Ms. Wilde argues that the Hearing Committee lacked substantial

evidence to find that she forged the Worldwide checks. Ms. Wilde asserts that there

is no evidence that she had access to the locked drawer in which the blank, presigned

checks were kept. The in-house bookkeeper, however, testified that Ms. Wilde had

access when the bookkeeper and Mr. Teras were on vacation.              The Hearing

Committee also heard testimony from Mr. Teras that he did not create or authorize

of any of the checks, as well as testimony from Mr. Teras and each check recipient

that the checks were out of the norm. Under these circumstances, the Hearing

Committee and the Board had substantial evidence to find that Ms. Wilde forged the

checks.

       “This court must accept a finding that is supported by substantial evidence in

the record as a whole, even though there may also be substantial evidence in the

record to support a contrary finding.” In re Godette, 919 A.2d 1157, 1163 (D.C.

2007) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Baumgartner v. Police &
                                          28

Firemen’s Ret. & Relief Bd., 527 A.2d 313, 316 (D.C. 1987)). Accordingly, we will

not disturb the Hearing Committee’s and the Board’s findings.

         IV.   Disciplinary Counsel’s Exceptions to the Board’s Report

      Disciplinary Counsel argues that the Board erred in determining that Ms.

Wilde did not commit fraud or forgery. The Board concluded that Ms. Wilde’s

actions creating forged bank letters and checks were not sufficiently connected to

the District such as to subject her to prosecution here.

      When charging a violation of Rule 8.4(b), Disciplinary Counsel “may look to

the law of any jurisdiction that could have prosecuted [the] respondent” for the

misconduct in question. In re Slattery, 767 A.2d 203, 212 (D.C. 2001) (internal

quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Gil, 656 A.2d 303, 305 (D.C. 1995)).

Disciplinary Counsel charged Ms. Wilde with Rule 8.4(b) violations due to her

commission of fraud under D.C. Code § 22-3221 and forgery under D.C. Code § 22-

3241. To be liable under these provisions, however, at least one element of the

offense must have occurred “within the geographic boundaries of the District of

Columbia.” See Dobyns v. United States, 30 A.3d 155, 157-58 (D.C. 2011) (citing

United States v. Baish, 460 A.2d 38, 40 (D.C. 1983)). The Board found that while

“overwhelming evidence” indicated that Ms. Wilde forged documents in a

fraudulent attempt to defeat the South Korean prosecution, no Rule 8.4(b) violation
                                       29

occurred because there was “no proof” that Ms. Wilde’s actions “emanated from a

location in the District of Columbia” such that Ms. Wilde could have been

prosecuted under either § 22-3221 or § 24-3241.

      We disagree with the Board. Ms. Wilde could have been prosecuted in the

District for her fraudulent conduct and forgeries. Teras & Wilde’s D.C. address

appears as the recipient address on many of the forged letters. Additionally, Ms.

Angha’s D.C. notary stamp appears on the February 15 letter, Mr. Gomez’s D.C.

notary stamp appears on the May 5 letter, and Mr. Gomez testified that he kept his

stamp in his desk drawer at the D.C. office. Teras & Wilde kept the Worldwide

checks in a locked cabinet in the D.C. office—indicating that Ms. Wilde took them

while in the District—and those checks included a D.C. return address on the face

of the checks and on the envelopes in which Ms. Wilde mailed the checks. For these

reasons, we conclude that Ms. Wilde’s actions could have subjected her to

prosecution for forgery and fraud in the District of Columbia and thus that she

committed the violations of Rule 8.4(b) with which she was charged.

                                V.   Disbarment

      Ms. Wilde argues, finally, that the Board should have recommended a less

severe sanction than disbarment—namely, a suspension. She contends that the

Board should have taken into account several mitigating factors, including her
                                          30

“distinguished career,” her “complete lack of disciplinary infractions,” and the fact

that the conduct at issue was unrelated to any of her clients or the practice of law.

      This court adopts the Board’s recommended sanction “unless to do so would

foster a tendency toward inconsistent dispositions for comparable conduct or would

otherwise be unwarranted.” D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(h)(1). “[A]lthough we must give

considerable deference to the Board’s recommendations in these matters, the

responsibility for imposing sanctions rests with this court in the first instance.”

Godette, 919 A.2d at 1164 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing In re Temple,

629 A.2d 1203, 1207 (D.C. 1993)). When determining the appropriate disciplinary

sanction, this court takes the following factors into consideration:

             (1) the seriousness of the conduct at issue; (2) the
             prejudice, if any, to the client which resulted from the
             conduct; (3) whether the conduct involved dishonesty
             and/or misrepresentation; (4) the presence or absence of
             violations of other provisions of the disciplinary rules[;]
             (5) whether the attorney had a previous disciplinary
             history; (6) whether or not the attorney acknowledged his
             or her wrongful conduct; and (7) circumstances in
             mitigation of the misconduct.

In re Pelkey, 962 A.2d 268, 281 (D.C. 2008) (quoting In re Thyden, 877 A.2d 129,

144 (D.C. 2005)). In cases involving dishonesty, this court has imposed disbarment

for dishonesty “of the flagrant kind.” Id.
                                         31

      In this case, we conclude that disbarment is warranted based on Ms. Wilde’s

theft and repeated and pervasive dishonesty. This court has imposed disbarment in

several comparable cases involving a combination of criminal or fraudulent conduct

and subsequent dishonesty in order to cover up that conduct, even in cases where

attorneys had no previous discipline and the misconduct did not directly harm a

client. See, e.g., In re Baber, 106 A.3d 1072, 1077-78 (D.C. 2015) (disbarring

lawyer with no previous discipline for making “prolonged and repeated” false

statements to client and Disciplinary Counsel over two-year period and showing no

remorse); In re Cleaver-Bascombe, 986 A.2d 1191, 1200 (D.C. 2010) (imposing

disbarment and stating that “lying under oath on the part of an attorney for the

purpose of attempting to cover-up previous . . . [misconduct] . . . is absolutely

intolerable” (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In

re Cleaver-Bascombe (Cleaver-Bascombe I), 892 A.2d 396, 412 (D.C. 2006)));

Pelkey, 962 A.2d at 281 (disbarring attorney with no prior discipline for lack of

remorse after engaging in fraud).      Because doing so would not result in an

inconsistent disposition to impose disbarment in Ms. Wilde’s case, we adopt the

Board’s recommended sanction.

                                 VI.   Conclusion

      Ms. Wilde is disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia.
                                        32

For purposes of reinstatement, the disbarment period runs from the date on which

Ms. Wilde filed her D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 14(g) affidavit.

                                                           So ordered.