In re McClure, 144 A.3d 570

Donald L. McClure represented Sharon Marbury, her minor child, and her granddaughter in a medical-malpractice action (representation: ~June 2005–Aug. 29, 2008). The complaint alleged serious, permanent injuries to the minor child and granddaughter.
Disciplinary Counsel filed charges alleging multiple violations of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct (including competence, fee, candor, fairness to opposing party, and dishonesty/discrimination rules) arising from McClure’s conduct in that matter.
An Ad Hoc Hearing Committee held a two-day evidentiary hearing, found multiple rule violations, and recommended an 18-month suspension (viewing the dishonesty as not “flagrant”).
Disciplinary Counsel excepted and sought disbarment; the Board adopted the Committee’s factual findings but recommended disbarment based on the totality of the misconduct.
McClure did not contest the Board’s report, filed no brief, and attempted to resign citing health and age; he had been suspended pending final disposition and had a prior informal admonition in 2001.
This Court accepted the Board’s factual findings and recommendation and ordered McClure disbarred; disbarment runs from the date he files the reinstatement affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Board’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence	Findings are supported by the record and should be adopted	McClure did not challenge the substance of the Board’s findings	Court accepted the Board’s factual findings as supported by substantial evidence
Proper sanction for the misconduct	Disbarment is warranted given the totality of dishonesty and harm to clients	Ad Hoc Committee recommended 18‑month suspension (dishonesty not “flagrant”); McClure offered no substantive rebuttal	Court adopted Board’s recommendation and ordered disbarment as consistent with comparable cases
Whether voluntary resignation precludes discipline or the Board’s sanction	Resignation should not avoid disciplinary review or the recommended sanction	McClure attempted to resign citing health and age	Resignation ineffective because he was suspended (not in good standing) and resignation cannot evade pending discipline; disbarment imposed
Whether mitigating factors (age, health, prior record) justify lesser sanction	Disciplinary Counsel argued little mitigation; lack of remorse supports disbarment	McClure pointed to age, health, and attempted resignation	Court found no countervailing considerations sufficient to avoid disbarment

In re Rodriguez-Quesada, 122 A.3d 913 (D.C. 2015) (standard that this Court accepts Board fact findings supported by substantial evidence)
In re Baber, 106 A.3d 1072 (D.C. 2015) (disbarment for repeated, protracted dishonesty that harmed client and showed no remorse)
In re Vohra, 68 A.3d 766 (D.C. 2013) (procedure and review standards for Board sanction recommendations)
In re Phillips, 452 A.2d 345 (D.C. 1982) (attorney cannot avoid investigation or discipline by resigning on eve of or during proceedings)
In re Webster, 661 A.2d 144 (D.C. 1995) (resignation does not preclude disciplinary action where proceedings are pending)