In re James Q. Butler
173 A.3d 86
D.C.2017Background
- James Q. Butler, a disbarred D.C. bar member (Bar Reg. No. 490014), filed a petition for reinstatement.
- An Ad Hoc Hearing Committee of the Board on Professional Responsibility reviewed the petition and issued a report recommending denial, finding deficiencies under the five Roundtree factors.
- The Court of Appeals issued an order directing Butler to show cause why reinstatement should not be denied; Butler responded.
- The court considered the Hearing Committee’s findings and the record and concluded the existing record was sufficient to resolve the petition without additional briefing or a Board recommendation.
- The court applied the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard in D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16(d) and found Butler failed to demonstrate fitness to resume practice.
- The petition for reinstatement was denied; Butler may not refile for at least one year under D.C. Bar R. XI § 16(g).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Butler proved by clear and convincing evidence he has the moral qualifications, competency, and learning in law required for readmission | Butler asserted he met the Roundtree factors and was fit to resume practice | Hearing Committee and Court argued record showed deficiencies on all Roundtree factors | Denied — Butler failed to meet clear-and-convincing standard |
| Whether reinstatement would be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the Bar or administration of justice | Butler claimed reinstatement would not be detrimental | Committee/Court found risks to the Bar’s integrity based on record deficiencies | Denied — resumption would be detrimental or not shown to be safe |
| Whether the Court needed additional briefing or a Board recommendation before deciding | Butler implicitly requested consideration; record was in place | Court determined rules permit deciding on existing record without further briefing or Board recommendation | Held — court exercised discretion to decide without further briefing or Board recommendation |
| Proper procedural standard of review for Hearing Committee findings | Butler relied on Committee findings favorable to him where applicable | Court treats Hearing Committee findings as entitled to substantial weight but retains ultimate authority | Held — Court accepts factual findings supported by substantial evidence but independently decides reinstatement merits |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Samad, 51 A.3d 486 (D.C. 2012) (court accepts Hearing Committee findings unless unsupported by substantial evidence)
- In re Shariati, 31 A.3d 81 (D.C. 2011) (standard for accepting Hearing Committee factual findings)
- In re Sabo, 49 A.3d 1219 (D.C. 2012) (court gives great weight to Hearing Committee recommendation but retains ultimate authority on reinstatement)
- In re Bettis, 644 A.2d 1023 (D.C. 1994) (discusses court’s authority in reinstatement decisions)
- In re Roundtree, 503 A.2d 1215 (D.C. 1985) (establishes five factors for reinstatement decisions)