In Re Shariati
31 A.3d 81
D.C.2011Background
- Bar Counsel presented over 100 alleged violations of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct arising from eleven clients' matters.
- After four months of hearings, the Hearing Committee found most charges established by clear and convincing evidence and recommended disbarment.
- The Board adopted the Hearing Committee's findings on nearly all counts and also recommended disbarment, with some debate over Rule 3.4(b) and Rule 8.4(d) consequences.
- The court adopted the Board's findings and sanction, holding that substantial evidence supported violations including Rule 3.4(b) and Rule 8.4(d) in certain matters.
- The court affirmed disbarment effective in 30 days from the opinion, with restitution to clients or the Client Security Trust Fund as a condition of reinstatement.
- The opinion emphasizes respondent’s dishonesty, lack of remorse, and repeated misconduct across eleven client representations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Shariati violate Rule 3.4(b) by falsifying evidence? | Board found falsification in several matters. | Respondent disputed some 3.4(b) findings or credibility. | Yes; substantial evidence supports 3.4(b) violations. |
| Did Shariati violate Rule 8.4(d) by failing to respond to Bar Counsel inquiries? | Board relied on a pattern of non-responsiveness in several matters. | Respondent contested applicability or proof of enforcement-order prerequisites. | Yes; substantial evidence supports 8.4(d) violations in I.D., A.S., M.K.S. matters irrespective of enforcement orders. |
| Is disbarment the appropriate sanction given the conduct across multiple representations? | Disbarment warranted due to flagrant dishonesty and client harm. | Narrower sanctions or restitution-only relief could be appropriate. | Disbarment appropriate and restitution required as condition of reinstatement. |
| Do respondent's due process or vindictive-prosecution claims have merit? | Arguments of unfair procedures and vindictive prosecution raised by respondent. | Respondent claimed due process issues and vindictive behavior by Bar Counsel. | No merit; claims rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re White, 11 A.3d 1226 (D.C. Court of Appeals, 2011) (deference to Board findings; disbarment considerations)
- In re Kanu, 5 A.3d 1 (D.C. Court of Appeals, 2010) (Bar Counsel may rely on findings beyond enforcement orders)
- In re Holdmann, 834 A.2d 887 (D.C. Court of Appeals, 2003) (procedural conduct and limits on challenges)
- In re Cleaver-Bascombe, 986 A.2d 1191 (D.C. Court of Appeals, 2010) (factors for disciplinary sanction; reinstatement considerations)
- In re Goffe, 641 A.2d 458 (D.C. Court of Appeals, 1994) (disbarment standards and public protection)