In re Stephen T.Yelverton, 105 A.3d 413

Background

Stephen T. Yelverton, a longtime D.C. practitioner, represented a complaining witness in a 2009 bench assault trial; the defendant was acquitted and the judge credited the defendant over Yelverton’s client.
Concerned his client might face perjury prosecution, Yelverton filed a meritless motion for mistrial (despite double-jeopardy/acquittal and lack of standing), then repeatedly filed numerous repetitive motions (including two recusal motions) in Superior Court and on appeal.
The trial court and this court characterized many filings as frivolous, repetitive, and lacking legal or factual support; this court referred the matter to Bar Counsel for investigation.
Bar Counsel charged violations of D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(a)/(b) (competence), 3.1 (non-meritorious claims), and 8.4(d) (conduct interfering with administration of justice).
A Hearing Committee largely recommended dismissal; the Board adopted the factual findings but concluded Yelverton violated all charged rules and recommended a 90‑day suspension plus a fitness requirement.
The Court of Appeals (this opinion) affirmed violations of Rules 3.1 and 8.4(d), declined to find Rule 1.1 violations because no client prejudice occurred, imposed a 30‑day suspension, and required proof of fitness for reinstatement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Bar Counsel)	Defendant's Argument (Yelverton)	Held
Whether Yelverton violated Rule 1.1 (competence)	Filing legally meritless motions (mistrial after acquittal, repetitive filings) showed serious deficiency and incompetence	Actions were sincere efforts to protect client; no prejudice to client; lack of criminal-defense experience explains missteps	No Rule 1.1 violation: although incompetent/legal mistakes occurred, they did not constitute a "serious deficiency" because they caused no client harm
Whether Yelverton violated Rule 3.1 (non‑meritorious claims)	Motions (mistrial, recusal) were frivolous, objectively lacking any basis in law or fact and repeated across proceedings	First Amendment petitioning/Noerr-Pennington protects filings; he acted to protect client	Rule 3.1 violated: motions were objectively frivolous and repetitive; First Amendment does not immunize baseless litigation
Whether Yelverton violated Rule 8.4(d) (interfering with administration of justice)	Repetitive, vexatious filings and unfounded recusal accusations harmed courts and defendant, imposing more‑than‑de minimis burden	Filings were heartfelt advocacy for client, not dishonest or intended to obstruct	Rule 8.4(d) violated: filings directly affected identifiable cases/tribunals and harmed the judicial process beyond de minimis impact
Appropriate sanction and fitness requirement	90‑day suspension and fitness requirement recommended by Board given volume, persistence, and lack of acknowledgment	Much of conduct was client‑centered, no prior discipline; shorter or no suspension appropriate	Court imposed 30‑day suspension (less than Board) but required clear‑and‑convincing proof of fitness for reinstatement due to ongoing pattern of abusive filings and failure to acknowledge wrongdoing

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662 (establishes that acquittal terminates jeopardy)
Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (private citizen lacks judicially cognizable interest in prosecution of another)
In re Spikes, 881 A.3d 1118 (frivolous, burdening filings can violate Rules 3.1 and 8.4(d))
In re Pelkey, 962 A.3d 268 (filing unfounded claims and misrepresentations violated Rules 3.1 and 8.4(d))
In re Evans, 902 A.2d 56 (Rule 1.1 requires a "serious deficiency" that prejudices client)
In re Sumner, 665 A.2d 986 (competence violations where counsel’s failures prejudiced client)
In re Hopkins, 677 A.2d 55 (frivolous filings contrary to statute/rule can harm judicial process)
In re Cater, 887 A.2d 1 (standards for imposing fitness requirement and suspension analysis)
In re Martin, 67 A.3d 1032 (conduct that improperly affects judicial process can violate Rule 8.4(d))