Raleigh Bynum, II, 197 A.3d 1072

Raleigh Bynum II, not licensed in South Carolina, agreed to represent three related clients (a son and his parents) in two medical-malpractice actions and an estate action, and separately represented the son in a life-insurance matter.
Prior counsel withdrew due to conflicts and sought to take two cases off the South Carolina docket with possible reinstatement; Bynum did not disclose his unlicensed status or the conflict to clients or the court.
Bynum failed to secure local counsel pro hac vice, did not timely restore or prosecute one malpractice case, did not conduct discovery, identify experts, or respond to court orders, resulting in dismissal of both malpractice suits.
He misrepresented to clients and the probate court that litigation was proceeding (and omitted that one suit had never been restored), misled the son about contacting the insurer, and failed to return the decedent’s policy copy timely.
Bynum gave repeated false testimony to the disciplinary Committee, blamed local counsel, and claimed health problems despite evidence of active litigation in other matters.
The Ad Hoc Committee found multiple professional-rule violations and recommended a three-year suspension; the Board found flagrant, prolonged dishonesty and recommended disbarment, which the court adopted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether respondent’s misconduct amounted to "flagrant dishonesty" warranting disbarment	Board/Disciplinary Counsel: Dishonesty was continuing, pervasive, prolonged, and aggravated; lack of remorse and blame-shifting support disbarment	Bynum/Committee: Misrepresentations did not involve schemes for pecuniary gain; suspension (not disbarment) sufficient	Court adopted Board: misconduct was flagrant dishonesty over five years and disbarment is warranted
Whether professional-rule violations occurred	Committee/Board: Violations of D.C. R. 1.3, 1.4 and 8.4(d) equivalents in SC based on neglect, failures to communicate, dishonesty	Bynum: (implicitly) blamed local counsel and cited health issues	Court accepted Committee/Board findings of multiple rule violations
Appropriate sanction given facts	Committee: three-year suspension with fitness requirement	Board: disbarment due to aggravated, prolonged dishonesty and lack of remorse	Court imposed disbarment per Board recommendation
Effect of no exceptions filed to Board report	Board: absence of exceptions warrants deference and imposition of recommended discipline	Bynum: no exceptions filed	Court entered recommended disbarment under D.C. Bar R. XI, §9(h)(2)

In re Pennington, 921 A.3d 135 (D.C. 2007) (defines flagrant dishonesty as pervasive indifference to honesty in the judicial system)
In re Omwenga, 49 A.3d 1235 (D.C. 2012) (dishonesty can be aggravated or prolonged supporting disbarment)
In re Howes, 39 A.3d 1 (D.C. 2018) (long and calculated course of dishonest conduct supports disbarment)
In re Vohra, 68 A.3d 766 (D.C. 2013) (lack of flagrant dishonesty where respondent took full responsibility)
In re Viehe, 762 A.2d 542 (D.C. 2000) (no exceptions to Board report leads to deferential review)
In re McClure, 144 A.3d 570 (D.C. 2016) (disbarment appropriate for flagrant dishonesty)
In re Pelkey, 962 A.2d 268 (D.C. 2008) (flagrant dishonesty can support disbarment)