In re: Robert W. Mance, III, 171 A.3d 1133

Background

Robert W. Mance III was suspended for six months in 2012 after admitting multiple misconducts (neglect, poor communication, failure to comply with court orders, and conflicts) in several client matters (Garrett, Riley, Randolph) and had other alleged misconduct (Swann, Hemphill) proffered at reinstatement.
He has a prior disciplinary history (informal admonitions 1996 & 2000; 30-day stayed suspension 2005; public censure 2009; out-of-jurisdiction discipline). The 2009 censure addressed improper treatment of flat fees.
Mance petitioned for reinstatement in 2013. Disciplinary (Bar) Counsel opposed and presented additional unadjudicated allegations; the Hearing Committee found Mance credible but recommended denial, focusing on inadequate remedial steps (notably insufficient case-management measures).
Key contested facts included delayed restitution payments (some paid only after filing for reinstatement), financial constraints during suspension, and uncertainty about office support and use of case-management tools.
The D.C. Court reviewed the Hearing Committee report, weighed the Roundtree factors, found Mance remorseful, competent, and fit to resume practice by clear and convincing evidence, but concluded conditions were appropriate to reduce relapse risk.
Court granted reinstatement subject to conditions: no solo practice for three years; required practice-management training within six months before resuming solo practice; and a one-year practice monitor to be appointed (monitoring reports every three months).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mance)	Defendant's Argument (Disciplinary Counsel)	Held
Whether Mance proved by clear and convincing evidence that he is fit to resume practice	Mance argued he is remorseful, has competent legal skills, completed training, kept current via part-time legal work, and will control caseload and communication	Counsel argued Mance failed to show concrete remedial measures (case-management proficiency, business plan, staffing) and delayed restitution raised doubts	Court held Mance met burden of proof and is fit for reinstatement by clear and convincing evidence, but conditions imposed
Whether the Hearing Committee’s adverse recommendation must be dispositive	Mance stressed his credible testimony and remedial intent	Counsel relied on Hearing Committee’s thorough recommendation to deny reinstatement	Court gave great weight to the Committee but exercised ultimate authority and reached a different conclusion based on the whole record
Whether delayed restitution bars reinstatement	Mance explained financial hardship during suspension and made some payments after petitioning; argued delay not dispositive	Counsel emphasized late payments as evidence of insufficient recognition of misconduct	Court found delayed restitution concerning but not a bar given credible explanation and precedent that delayed restitution alone need not preclude reinstatement
Whether conditions on reinstatement are proper here	Mance accepted conditions and argued he needs support to avoid relapse	Counsel contended conditions cannot substitute for proof of fitness and sought denial or stricter requirements	Court imposed targeted conditions (no solo practice 3 years; management training; one-year practice monitoring) to facilitate safe reintegration while recognizing fitness

Key Cases Cited

In re Mance, 35 A.3d 1125 (D.C. 2012) (opinion imposing negotiated discipline and describing misconduct at issue)
In re Sabo, 49 A.3d 1219 (D.C. 2012) (standard of review for reinstatement and limits on conditioning reinstatement)
In re Mba-Jonas, 118 A.3d 785 (D.C. 2015) (court accepts Hearing Committee findings absent lack of substantial evidence)
In re Daniel, 135 A.3d 796 (D.C. 2016) (defining fitness standards under D.C. Bar R. XI § 16)
In re Roundtree, 503 A.2d 1215 (D.C. 1985) (factors for evaluating reinstatement petitions)
In re Turner, 915 A.2d 351 (D.C. 2006) (reinstatement precedent regarding restitution and conditioning)
In re Roxborough, 775 A.2d 1063 (D.C. 2001) (use of practice monitors and conditional reinstatement)
In re McConnell, 667 A.2d 94 (D.C. 1995) (conditioning reinstatement to assure continued fitness)