In re Green, 136 A.3d 699

H. Franklin Green was found by an Ad Hoc Hearing Committee and the Board on Professional Responsibility to have committed multiple ethics violations, including intentional or reckless misappropriation/commingling (D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(a)), failure to deliver funds (1.15(c)), criminal conduct reflecting on fitness (8.4(b)), dishonesty (8.4(c)), and interference with administration of justice (8.4(d)).
The Board recommended disbarment and restitution to four named victims in specified amounts; the Board adopted the Hearing Committee’s Report and Recommendation.
Green did not present substantive exceptions to the Board’s findings despite being granted additional time; he raised largely the same arguments he made before the Hearing Committee.
Green moved to dismiss the proceedings on the ground that the Hearing Committee issued its report after the 120-day period in D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(a); the Board rejected this and the Court affirmed because the timetable is directory and Green showed no prejudice.
The Court concluded Green forfeited his substantive challenges by failing to present them to the Board, found no obvious miscarriage of justice, accepted the Board’s findings, and ordered disbarment with restitution as a condition of reinstatement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Green committed ethics violations	Green contended he violated no Rules	Board/Hearing Committee found multiple violations based on record	Court accepted Board’s findings; Green forfeited substantive exceptions
Whether failure to present exceptions to the Board forfeits appellate review	Green effectively raised arguments by prior filings	Board argued absent presentation to Board, issues are forfeited on review	Court held issues forfeited because Green did not timely present them to the Board
Whether delay in Hearing Committee report (120-day rule) required dismissal	Green urged dismissal because report exceeded 120 days	Board argued the 120-day requirement is directory and delay alone is insufficient without prejudice	Court held timeline is directory; denial of dismissal proper because no prejudice shown
Appropriate sanction for 1.15(a) misappropriation and related misconduct	Green argued no misconduct and opposed disbarment	Board recommended disbarment and restitution; disbarment is presumptive for 1.15(a) absent extraordinary circumstances	Court ordered disbarment and restitution as condition of reinstatement

In re Holdmann, 834 A.2d 887 (recognizing forfeiture where respondent fails to present issues to the Board)
In re Abrams, 689 A.2d 6 (forfeiture of points not raised before the Board)
In re Morrell, 684 A.2d 361 (holding R. XI §9(a) timetable directory, not mandatory)
In re Barber, 128 A.3d 637 (applying Morrell to current R. XI §9(a))
In re Fay, 111 A.3d 1025 (delay without showing of substantial prejudice does not bar discipline)
In re Hewett, 11 A.3d 279 (disbarment presumptive for R.1.15(a) violations absent extraordinary circumstances)
In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190 (establishing disbarment presumption for misappropriation)
In re Shillaire, 549 A.2d 336 (observing ultimate disciplinary responsibility rests with the court)
In re Goffer, 121 A.3d 1252 (consideration of obvious miscarriage of justice exception)
In re Spann, 711 A.2d 1262 (discussing when identical discipline might constitute a miscarriage of justice)