In re Wilde
68 A.3d 749
D.C.2013Background
- Jinhee Kim Wilde, a D.C. Bar member, was convicted in South Korea (Incheon District Court) for theft (Aug. 28, 2009); Bar Counsel sought temporary suspension under D.C. Bar R. XI §10 and disbarment under D.C. Code §11-2503(a).
- Wilde opposed, arguing §10 and §11-2503 apply only to domestic convictions and that South Korean procedures differ materially from U.S. due-process protections.
- A Maryland disciplinary court (original proceeding) found Bar Counsel did not prove Wilde stole the money; the Maryland court gave no preclusive weight to the Korean conviction.
- The D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility recommended that §10 does not cover foreign convictions and that Bar Counsel may pursue an original proceeding under D.C. Bar R. XI §8.
- The D.C. Court of Appeals held that foreign criminal convictions are not "conviction[s] of [a] crime" under D.C. Code §11-2503(a) or D.C. Bar R. XI §10, but allowed Bar Counsel to bring an original §8 disciplinary proceeding.
- The Court further held that a foreign conviction may, in a §8 proceeding, be given offensive collateral estoppel effect only if the Board, after review (Hearing Committee findings and recommendation), exercises its discretion and finds it fair and reasonable to do so.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a conviction in a foreign court is a "conviction of [a] crime" under D.C. Code §11-2503(a) and D.C. Bar R. XI §10 | Bar Counsel: §10's broad language should include foreign convictions to serve disciplinary aims and avoid giving attorneys a "free pass" for foreign crimes | Wilde/Board: §10 and §11-2503 apply only to domestic (U.S.) courts; foreign systems vary and lack U.S. protections, so automatic preclusion is inappropriate | Held: Foreign convictions are not within §11-2503(a) or §10; automatic conclusive effect under those provisions is unavailable |
| Whether Bar Counsel can initiate original disciplinary proceedings based on foreign criminal conduct (D.C. Bar R. XI §8) | Bar Counsel: If §10 doesn't apply, §8 original proceedings would be difficult (subpoena limits, foreign discovery) but necessary to address misconduct | Wilde/Board: Bar Counsel can pursue §8; subpoena power, reciprocity, and comity can aid fact-finding; §8 is appropriate forum | Held: Bar Counsel may bring an original §8 proceeding based on foreign criminal conduct |
| Whether a foreign conviction may be given offensive collateral estoppel effect in a §8 proceeding | Bar Counsel: Should be able to rely on foreign convictions for estoppel to simplify proof and protect public | Wilde/Board: Preclusion would be unfair absent inquiry into foreign procedures; must assess fairness case-by-case | Held: Foreign convictions may be given offensive collateral estoppel effect in §8 proceedings, but only if the Board (after Hearing Committee findings) in its discretion finds it fair and reasonable to do so; Bar Counsel bears the burden (clear and convincing) |
| Whether temporary suspension under §10(c) may be entered based on a foreign conviction | Bar Counsel: §10(c) suspension appropriate for serious crimes, including foreign ones | Wilde/Board: §10(c) was not intended to reach foreign convictions; temporary suspension based on foreign conviction not authorized | Held: Temporary suspension under §10(c) cannot rest on a foreign conviction under §10; the Court lifted the prior temporary suspension and dismissed §10(a) action without prejudice to §8 proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Small v. United States, 544 U.S. 385 (construing statutory phrase "convicted in any court" as domestic; instructive on extraterritorial application)
- Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (upholding courts' broad discretion to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel)
- Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (establishing comity standards for recognition and preclusive effect of foreign judgments)
- In re Scallen, 269 N.W.2d 834 (Minn. 1978) (discipline based on Canadian criminal conviction where trial was fundamentally fair)
- K.H., Sr. v. R.H., 935 A.2d 328 (D.C. 2007) (discussing cautious application of non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel in D.C.)