In re Samad, 51 A.3d 486

Respondent Richard A. Samad was found to commit 40 violations of 14 Rules in six matters; Board recommended three-year suspension, fitness to practice, and restitution of $2,500 to Williams.
The Hearing Committee found substantial evidence supporting most factual findings; Board adopted those findings and prepared a longer suspension due to pattern of conduct.
Williams matter: Respondent failed to prepare, investigate, or file motions; he appeared unprepared at trial, causing bench warrant and new counsel for Williams.
Carthens matter: Respondent arrived late to a morning session, caused disruption, and the judge recused; violations included failure to disobey tribunal rules and interference with justice.
McAllister matter: Respondent charged flat fee, provided minimal services, failed to file a requested motion for sentence reduction, and did not communicate adequately.
Montgomery matter: Respondent stopped representation after fee dispute and failed to protect client’s interests or withdraw properly, delaying proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Board’s findings of misconduct are supported	Samad engaged in pattern of neglect and dishonesty	Board’s conclusions reflect tactical judgments or limited scope representations	Supported; substantial evidence shows neglect and dishonest acts
Whether Hill and Williams matters establish Rule violations	Violations of competence, diligence, communication, and honesty	Some actions were tactical decisions not improper	Violations proven; Board’s conclusions upheld
Whether Respondent’s false statements to tribunals were proven	Respondent knowingly lied or misled tribunals	Any statements were not knowingly false or material	Proven; findings of false statements sustained
Whether the sanction of three-year suspension with fitness and restitution is appropriate	Maximum suspension warranted due to extensive misconduct	Less severe sanction could suffice given circumstances	Three-year suspension with fitness and restitution affirmed
Whether restitution to Williams is warranted	Unauthorized fees and unearned portion must be refunded	Limited scope of fee arrangement limits restitution	Restitution ordered; $2,500 plus interest

In re Scott, 19 A.3d 774 (D.C.2011) (long suspension possible for pattern of misconduct)
In re Steele, 868 A.2d 146 (D.C.2005) (maximum three-year suspension with fitness)
In re Ukwu, 926 A.2d 1106 (D.C.2007) (pattern of neglect can justify lengthy suspension)
In re Cleaver-Bascombe, 986 A.2d 1191 (D.C.2010) (pattern of misconduct supports maximum sanction)
In re Pullings, 724 A.2d 600 (D.C.1999) (distinguishable; involves different misconduct (no dishonesty))
In re White, 11 A.3d 1226 (D.C.2011) (board’s sanction review and fitness considerations)