In re Speights, 173 A.3d 96

Background

Nathaniel H. Speights represented Anders Bjorgung (and parents) in a skiing personal-injury matter filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania; the engagement was contingent-fee and expenses were client-paid.
Over multi-year litigation Speights repeatedly failed to investigate, preserve evidence, take or compel discovery, prepare his client for deposition, timely produce an expert report, comply with local rules, or amend the complaint after the defendants identified the correct owner/operator of the ski resort.
The district court twice dismissed or ruled against the plaintiff after finding counsel’s disregard for court orders; the Third Circuit affirmed the adverse outcome on appeal for the later proceedings.
Disciplinary/Bar Counsel charged Speights with violating D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(a), 1.1(b), 1.3(a), and 1.3(c); an Ad Hoc Hearing Committee found violations by clear and convincing evidence and recommended a six‑month suspension.
The Board on Professional Responsibility adopted the Committee’s factual findings (reviewing them for substantial-evidence support), concurred in the recommendations, and the Court of Appeals imposed a six‑month suspension (effective 30 days after opinion).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the charged rule violations were proved by the required standard	Disciplinary Counsel: clear and convincing evidence of neglect/incompetence	Speights: evidence insufficient to meet clear and convincing standard	Court: Committee’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence; Committee applied clear and convincing standard to facts and was entitled to conclude violations were established
Proper standard of review by the Board	Bar/Disciplinary Counsel: Board may defer to Committee factual findings and review legal issues de novo	Speights: Board should have itself applied the clear and convincing standard when reviewing Committee findings	Held: Board properly used "substantial evidence on the record as a whole" when reviewing Committee findings per Board Rule 13.7; clear-and-convincing is the finder-of-fact standard
Motions to dismiss charges / to strike expert testimony	Speights: dismiss because client had no viable underlying claim; move to strike expert Grenier as unsworn/hindsight opinion	Disciplinary Counsel: merits of underlying claim immaterial to disciplinary liability; Grenier testified under oath and was qualified; Speights waived objections	Held: Motion to dismiss denied (discipline need not prove malpractice or damages); motion to strike Grenier denied (testimony sworn, relevant, and objections forfeited)
Appropriate sanction for pervasive neglect and dishonesty	Bar Counsel sought 3-month suspension; Hearing Committee and Board recommended 6 months	Speights argued against findings/discipline	Held: Six‑month suspension adopted (aggravating factors: prolonged neglect, prior admonition, dishonesty/unwillingness to acknowledge wrongdoing; mitigation not shown)

Key Cases Cited

In re Evans, 902 A.2d 56 (D.C. 2006) (Rule 1.1(a) requires a "serious deficiency" in competence to establish a violation)
In re Yelverton, 105 A.3d 413 (D.C. 2014) (discusses prejudice/potential prejudice and application of Rule 1.1(b))
In re Banks, 461 A.2d 1038 (D.C. 1983) (prejudice to the client is not an element of neglect for disciplinary purposes)
In re Douglass, 859 A.2d 1069 (D.C. 2004) (distinguishing malpractice and disciplinary proceedings; sanctions for neglect/incompetence)
In re Robertson, 612 A.2d 1236 (D.C. 1992) (disciplinary proceedings are not the forum to determine client damages in malpractice claims)
In re Askew, 96 A.3d 52 (D.C. 2014) (six‑month suspension imposed for egregious neglect; mitigation and admission factors considered)
In re Chapman, 962 A.2d 922 (D.C. 2009) (false testimony before the disciplinary system is a significant aggravating factor)
In re Pierson, 690 A.2d 941 (D.C. 1997) (deference to Board's sanction recommendations and sanctioning principles)