In Re Howes, 39 A.3d 1

respondent G. Paul Howes, a former AUSA, misused over $42,000 in witness vouchers for non-witnesses, including relatives and friends, in multiple cases and knowingly violated 28 U.S.C. § 1821 and related rules.
he failed to disclose voucher payments to the court or opposing counsel, and later made false statements that such disclosures had been made, in violation of Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States.
the misconduct affected sentences in the Card/Moore and Newton Street Crew prosecutions, leading to substantial sentence reductions for nine felons.
the Office of Professional Responsibility investigated the voucher scheme; Bar Counsel filed charges alleging multiple rules violations and sought substantial discipline.
the Hearing Committee found numerous violations across three cases, and the Board divided on sanction proposals, ranging from suspension to disbarment, with the court ultimately disbarring.
this court, under its supervisory role, conducted de novo review of the Board’s conclusions and determined disbarment is warranted to protect the public and deter prosecutorial misconduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether disbarment is the appropriate sanction for prosecutorial voucher misconduct	Howes argues for lesser suspension due to mitigators and delay.	Bar Counsel argues disbarment is warranted given scope and dishonesty.	Disbarment warranted
Whether mitigating factors outweigh aggravating factors	Howes contends mitigating factors (cooperation, lack of prior discipline) apply.	Bar Counsel contends aggravating factors predominate due to scope and deceit.	aggravating factors prevail; disbarment appropriate
Role of delay in disciplinary proceedings as a factor	Howes claims delay harmed his reputation; delay should mitigate sanction.	Board found delay largely non-mitigating; no prejudice justifying lesser sanction.	Delay not mitigating; no reduction ashore
Whether the misconduct compromised public trust and deterrence requirements	Misuse of public funds and concealment undermines justice and deterrence.	Some justification offered but insufficient to excuse dishonesty.	Yes; supports disbarment

Cleaver-Bascombe II, 986 A.2d 1191 (D.C. 2010) (disbarment for widespread voucher misuse and dishonesty tied to public funds)
Kanu, 5 A.3d 1 (D.C. 2010) (four-factor analysis in sanctioning prosecutors)
Pelkey, 962 A.2d 268 (D.C. 2008) (continuing and pervasive dishonesty supporting disbarment)
Goffe, 641 A.2d 458 (D.C. 1994) (disbarment appropriate where misconduct is egregious and ongoing)
Corizzi, 803 A.2d 438 (D.C. 2002) (disbarment warranted for repeated dishonesty and misconduct)
In re Hutchinson, 534 A.2d 919 (D.C. 1987) (en banc; considered seriousness of prosecutorial misconduct)
In re McBride, 642 A.2d 1270 (D.C. 1994) (restrictive sanctions for serious misconduct in prior era)
In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190 (D.C. 1990) (mitigating considerations in disciplinary severity)
In re Cleaver-Bascombe, 892 A.2d 396 (D.C. 2006) (precedent recognizing disbarment for misappropriation and dishonesty)