In Re White
11 A.3d 1226
| D.C. | 2011Background
- Board on Professional Responsibility filed two reports; consolidated for review.
- August 20, 2009 report held respondent violated Rule 1.11 (conflict) but not Rule 8.4(d).
- July 28, 2010 amended report held respondent violated multiple rules in a separate whistleblower matter and recommended disbarment.
- Court adopted Board’s findings and sanctions in the second matter and adopted first report’s findings except for Rule 8.4(d).
- Respondent failed to file briefs; the court ordered disbarment with an effective date 30 days from the opinion and five-year bar on reinstatement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether White violated Rule 1.11 by representing after OHR involvement. | White violated 1.11 by adverse, personal participation. | White’s actions did not constitute prohibited “personal and substantial” involvement. | Yes; Board findings supported Rule 1.11 violation. |
| Whether White violated Rule 8.4(d) in the Thomas matter. | White’s conduct tainted the administration of justice. | Board failed to prove 8.4(d) under Hopkins criteria. | Yes; the majority found 8.4(d) proved and the sanction of disbarment warranted. |
| What sanction is appropriate given the Rule 1.11 and 8.4(d) findings. | Six-month suspension with fitness condition (Board 2009). | Disbarment not warranted; lesser sanction appropriate. | Disbarment with five-year reinstatement bar; fitness requirement deemed appropriate. |
| Whether fitness for reinstatement is required and for how long. | Fitting to require fitness for potential return. | No reinstatement eligibility if disbarred. | Five-year bar on reinstatement with fitness required if reinstatement sought. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hopkins v. District of Columbia, 677 A.2d 55 (D.C. 1996) (three Hopkins criteria for Rule 8.4(d) violations: improper, bears on justice, taints process more than de minimis)
- Brown v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, 486 A.2d 37 (D.C. 1984) (confidential information concerns in Rule 1.11 concerns)
- Sofaer, 728 A.2d 625 (D.C. 1999) (same matter and overlap in Rule 1.11(a) analysis; overlap may require disqualification)
- In re Cleaver-Bascombe, 986 A.2d 1191 (D.C. 2010) (disbarment upheld for fraudulent vouchers and related misconduct; emphasis on seriousness of deceit)
- In re Roundtree, 503 A.2d 1215 (D.C. 1985) (Roundtree factors for reinstatement considerations)