In Re Scott
19 A.3d 774
| D.C. | 2011Background
- Respondent Tamla T. Scott, a DC Bar member, previously practiced in North Carolina for ten years before moving to DC in 2005.
- She applied for DC Bar admission in 2005, listing herself as in good standing and disclosing a 2003 NC reprimand for fee-dispute issues; she answered 10A Yes and 10B No on the application.
- The Board found her 10B response literally wrong but not misleading due to disclosure under 10A.
- Before swearing in to the DC Bar in 2006, four NC grievances arose over unpaid fees; she failed to inform the DC admissions process of these pending matters and did not respond to NC petitions.
- NC Disciplinary Hearing Commission in 2008 found violations including 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, 1.5, 8.1, and statute violations; she was suspended for three years with possible stay after one year.
- The DC Bar issued a reciprocal suspension recommendation of two years with a fitness requirement; an original-discipline matter charged DC Rules 8.1, 8.4 as dishonest conduct and interference with justice; the Board consolidated both matters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a three-year suspension with fitness is appropriate. | Scott; Bar Counsel urged disbarment; Board recommended two years with fitness. | Scott did not object; DC considers holistic, combined misconduct. | Three-year suspension with fitness is affirmed as appropriate. |
| Whether reciprocal and original matters should yield a single consolidated sanction. | Board conferred a consolidated sanction addressing both matters. | None noted; respondent did not challenge. | Court adopts a consolidated sanction reflecting both matters, with enhancement for NC misconduct. |
| Whether the sanction should reflect the reciprocal discipline's effect from the date of interim suspension. | Bar Counsel argued for a dated start; the Board indicated March 17, 2008 with possible nunc pro tunc. | Respondent's affidavit timing issues were technical; nunc pro tunc treatment appropriate. | Punitive period nunc pro tunc from March 17, 2008 is appropriate. |
| Whether respondent’s misrepresentations to the DC COA during admission warrant enhanced discipline. | Respondent knowingly misrepresented facts to conceal NC grievances. | Respondent testified inconsistently; there is no explicit mitigating factor. | Dishonesty and interference with the admissions process justify substantial sanction. |
| Whether the sanction should have been disbarment in light of the combined misconduct. | Bar Counsel urged disbarment for cumulative dishonesty. | No separate challenge by respondent; court weighs factors and precedent. | Disbarment not warranted; three-year suspension with fitness is appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Ditton, 980 A.2d 1170 (DC 2009) (consolidated discipline and holistic sanction framework)
- In re Thompson, 492 A.2d 866 (DC 1985) (dual considerations in consolidated matters)
- In re Thompson, 478 A.2d 1061 (DC 1984) (general principles for evaluating sanctions)
- In re Cleaver-Bascombe II, 986 A.2d 1191 (DC 2010) (multiyear sanction for serious misconduct)
- In re Starnes, 829 A.2d 488 (DC 2003) (character and fitness inquiry safeguards in admissions)
- In re Williams, 3 A.3d 1179 (DC 2010) (de novo review of legal conclusions; substantial evidence standard)
- In re Fair, 780 A.2d 1106 (DC 2001) (sanction framework and proportionality)
- In re Kline, 11 A.3d 261 (DC 2011) (three-year suspension for serious misconduct including deceit)