In re Chris C. Yum, 187 A.3d 1289

Background

Christopher C. Yum was disbarred by consent in 2011 following a 2006 conviction for making a false statement in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1001. He petitioned for reinstatement in 2015; Disciplinary Counsel opposed.
An Ad Hoc Hearing Committee recommended reinstatement after hearing Yum's testimony and limited character evidence; Disciplinary Counsel objected and the matter was referred to the Board on Professional Responsibility.
The Board recommended denial; the D.C. Court of Appeals reviewed under the clear-and-convincing standard for reinstatement and the Roundtree factors.
The court applied heightened scrutiny because Yum’s misconduct was closely tied to his role as an attorney, making the nature of the original misconduct especially significant.
The court accepted Yum’s expressed remorse but found his evidence on present character and present competence (Roundtree factors 4 and 5) insufficient: his character witnesses lacked familiarity with the misconduct and he failed to show that post-disbarment work involved legal analysis or otherwise demonstrated competence.
The petition for reinstatement was denied.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Yum met the burden for reinstatement under D.C. Bar R. XI §16 and Roundtree factors	Yum argued he showed remorse, attended Bar courses, worked in legal-adjacent roles, and had character support	Disciplinary Counsel argued Yum failed to prove present character and competence; witnesses were unfamiliar with misconduct and work did not show legal skill	Denied: Yum failed clear-and-convincing proof, particularly on present character and competence (Roundtree factors 4 and 5)
Proper application of heightened scrutiny where misconduct implicates attorney role	Yum relied on Hearing Committee’s favorable credibility assessment	Counsel argued heightened scrutiny applies and requires stronger evidence of reform and competence	Court applied heightened scrutiny and found the record inadequate
Sufficiency/weight of character witnesses	Yum submitted two witnesses who testified favorably about him	Counsel argued the witnesses lacked knowledge of the underlying misconduct, so their testimony had little weight	Court agreed witnesses were unfamiliar with details and gave their testimony limited weight
Whether post-disbarment work demonstrated present legal competence	Yum cited law clerk, translator, document reviewer work and CLE attendance	Counsel noted Yum did not show that work involved legal analysis nor produced supervising witnesses to attest to quality	Court found Yum failed to show his post-disbarment work improved legal skills or proved competence

Key Cases Cited

In re Yum, 19 A.3d 367 (D.C. 2011) (disbarment by consent following criminal conviction)
In re Sabo, 49 A.3d 1219 (D.C. 2012) (court gives great weight to Board but has ultimate authority on reinstatement)
In re Mance, 171 A.3d 1133 (D.C. 2017) (reinstatement standard under D.C. Bar R. XI §16)
In re Roundtree, 503 A.3d 1215 (D.C. 1985) (sets five-factor framework for reinstatement)
In re Bettis, 644 A.3d 1023 (D.C. 1994) (nature of misconduct primary; post-discipline legal work can show competence)
In re Borders, 665 A.3d 1381 (D.C. 1995) (heightened scrutiny where misconduct tied to attorney role)
In re Tinsley, 668 A.3d 833 (D.C. 1995) (insufficient character or competence proof when witnesses unfamiliar with misconduct)
In re Stanton, 589 A.3d 425 (D.C. 1991) (need supervisory testimony about quality of post-discipline legal work)