*1 supple- promptly, re- us pursued “good faith” reasons. We turn the record to ject respects order argument out of hand. other mented. all appeal is taken is affirmed. from which this
“Attorney’s litigation fees for bad faith proper only presence are ... record part, remanded Affirmed extraordinary circumstances or when domi- part. nating demand.” reasons fairness so Foundation, Bernstein,
Synanon Inc. v. (D.C.1986) (citations
517 A.2d omit-
ted). litiga- very Here the reason for the By King’s self-help. resort
tion was Mr.
withholding payments legitimately support King in a King, placed
due to Mrs. Mr. her
position litigation from un- where was far noted, “the reasonable. As this court has In re Thomas DEMOS Paul punish exception faith is intended to bad II, Applicant. process judicial those who abused the have 84-1777. No. and to deter those who would do so omitted); (citation ac- future.” Id. at 37 Appeals. Columbia Court cord, e.g., General Federation Women’s Argued Oct. En Banc 1989. Inn, Inc., 537 A.2d Clubs v. Iron Gate Aug. 1990. Decided (D.C.1988). Although the court King the full amount did award Mrs. requested, it did rule for her on
she claim, noting litiga-
merits of her fail- King’s Mr. “willful
tion resulted from provide support,
ure to child as set forth Agreement....” parties’ Separation record,
Considering cannot the entire in the trial
find of discretion16 abuse impose sanctions
court’s failure attorneys ground King or her
Mrs.
of bad faith.
VI $11,-
We affirm the trial court’s award We King. attorney’s
090.93 fees Mrs. to the trial court with
remand record rulings it supplement with
directions to under King’s requests for sanctions
Mr. 37(a)(4), expenses 11 and under Rule
Rule A V and C of
as set forth sections trial opinion.17 it to the
of this We leave discretion, decide, in whether rulings these on the basis
make hearings
existing to hold further record or further written submissions
or invite of this jurisdiction retain parties. We court, com- upon trial
appeal and direct the re- proceedings, to of the remand
pletion Clubs, view, course, express on the merits Women’s We no See General Federation 1129; Synanon, supra, requests. 537 A.2d of either these A.2d at 38. *2 Mexi-
father, of the bars of New a member Columbia, Demos District of co and the attorney deposi- in the participated as an compensa- in a of a workers’ tion witness depo- tion action on June sition, Demos, representative of as the sole questions of present, firm asked his law Demos, II, se, T. pro T. and Paul Paul in- failed to being deposed and person Demos, Sr., applicant. non-lawyer opposing counsel of his form Reischel, for Charles L. in that irregular participation His status. Moore, Jr., Lloyd N. entered Admissions. practice admitted to deposition while not Admis- appearance for Committee on hearing on June resulted sions. Martinez, a Michael the Honorable before of New Mexi- judge trial of the state state ROGERS, Judge, and Before Chief hearing of the before co. In the course BELSON, TERRY, NEWMAN, FERREN, Martinez, represented that Demos Judge FARRELL, STEADMAN, SCHWELB and exam, already passed the D.C. bar he had Judges. Associate awaiting still though in fact even regrade his bar petition on his action EN BANC ON REHEARING improving his hopes essays exam BELSON, Judge: also passing grade, and score of 69.95 to a graduated Demos II is an Paul Thomas that he had represented to the Bar of the District of he had for admission instead Antioch Law School when Columbia. The Committee on Admissions the Potomac School graduated from unanimously ap- that Demos’ eventually recommended De- held Judge Martinez Law. denied, plication and has twice reit- contempt of court because mos after further court, erated that recommendation deposition. The in the participation proceedings. The Committee found purge the Demos to permitted mor- Demos failed demonstrate expenses of contempt by paying the character and fitness to law. al opposing party. agree the Committee’s reasons
We of this mat- original consideration In its recommending admission. Ac- denial of ad- ter, on Admissions the Committee Paul cordingly, application misrepresentations con- dressed certain Demos II for admission to the Thomas supple- response tained Demos’ District of Columbia.1 of the to successful questionnaire sent mental gain to the Demos’ efforts to admission De- the D.C. bar examination. takers of began after the District of Columbia Bar of that he had failed to disclose mos’ answers Potomac degree from the he received a J.D. Martinez, by Judge held been unsuccess- in 1982. He was of Law School clearly for revela- although the form called February July 1982 and ful both evi- presented Demos that action. tion of Bar examina- 1983 District Columbia dence, accepted, that however, for a re- petitioned, tions. He in his behalf had been filled out the form examination, February 1983 grading of the Demos was absent by a friend while passing score. received a did not view De- The Committee vacation. ques- supplemental to the response mos’ recommen- unanimous In the first of its effort to conceal admission, as a deliberate tionnaire against Demos’ dations information, as a failure to exer- but rather by Demos considered behavior handling of his affairs. cise due care work- Mexico. While of New in the state “not its submission did It concluded of his in the office law clerk ing as a Columbia). That decision initially Bar of the District of considered of this court 1. A division Demos, simultaneously vacated on was issued and A.2d re in In Demos’ bar Id. at 1155. (D.C.1989) (ordered Demos admitted dishonesty pending court, rise to level of or a tee lack of were before this good moral character.” Ad- Committee on Committee received information from the Findings and missions on Mor- Conclusions Character Fitness Division of Practice, al Character and Fitness De- Supreme of Law Board Examiners *3 18, 1984, cember at 6. (1) regarding judg- Texas another Court of find, however, The did Committee that contempt against Demos that was ment of supported finding the evidence a that De- 6, 1985, by County the Court issued March engaged prac- mos had the unauthorized Texas, (2) County, a conviction Rockwall tice law State of New Mexico.2 that for assault entered Demos on Id. The Committee recognized, (3) court,4 by that same date an investi- the applicant’s that father and another at- gation possi- Texas by the State Bar of into torney in his office much the shared practice by ble De- law blame for Demos’ unauthorized court mos.5 This authorized the Commit- Id. “applicant law. It also found that was supplement tee on Admissions to its record testimony forthright not honest and in his the regarding Demos in view of additional hearing Martinez], the Judge at as [before A further formal information Texas. the at for- well before [its] April hearing was scheduled for Id. The Committee went hearing.”3 mal appear. failed The Commit- but Demos to deliberately on to conclude that Demos had Supplemental tee Re- thereafter issued its attempted to mislead the New Mexico port that on and that the record a whole “shows and Recommendation March disregard he for the exhibited callous its signed by for Id. truth while under oath.” dissent, Chair, expressed, without unwillingness certify continued While Demos’ for admission and the the report of Admissions Commit- admission. Supreme Judicial of Texas at Dallas
2. The record before this court does not indicate
(Dec. 2, 1985).
by any
passed
that
issue was
New Mexi-
authority.
co
no conclusion
State Bar
Texas reached
5.The
during
3. The
Committee noted that
Admissions
allegation
prac-
regarding the
of unauthorized
Martinez,
hearing
Judge
his
before
state,
Com-
tice
that
nor did the Admissions
"vague
answering
Demos was
and hesitant" in
investigation
prompted
The Texas
was
mittee.
signatures
questions about the
on several doc-
Craft,
grievance
Karolyn
Ms.
filed
unwilling
uments
with the
He was
filed
client of
law office Demos' father.
former
signatures
identify
as his
certain
own
Craft,
represented
According to Ms.
Demos
her
father,
working
for
he was
at
those of his
whom
deposition
bankruptcy
In a
taken
in a
action.
hearing
Subsequently,
at a
before the
time.
Character
Fitness Division of
Admissions,
Demos admitted he
Supreme
Law
Court
Board of
Examiners
vague
New
was
in his answers to the
Mexico
Texas,
that Demos' conduct led
she testified
signing
doc-
court. He also admitted to
attorney.
also
her
believe that he was an
She
fear,
question and
and a
uments in
claimed
misappropriating
her tele-
accused Demos
father, prompted
equiv-
protect
desire to
personal
his own
use.
vision set and VCR for
sug-
in New Mexico. Demos has
ocal answers
Craft,
management
According
of her
to Ms.
Judge
hearing
gested
Martinez
that the
before
building
apartment
had confiscated
former
irregular in that it should have been held
was
pay
rent.
property
she
unable
her
when
was
judge,
he
and that
did not
before a different
attempted
property,
to retrieve the
When she
prepare
it.
adequate time to
Before
have
testified,
“gone”.
it was
Ms.
she
Demos told her
answered,
under
Demos first
management office that same
went to the
Craft
day
oath,
New
that he had misinformed
Demos had retrieved
and learned that
graduate
of Antioch Law
court that he was
property almost
earlier. She later
two weeks
spent
he
less than six
School because
had
TV in
VCR in Demos’ office and her
found the
of Law. Later at
at the Potomac School
months
living
room of
of Demos’ friends.
one
hearing,
acknowledged
he had
he
same
accusations,
response
these
Demos asserted
Law for
School of
about
attended the Potomac
testimony
untrustworthy
be-
Ms. Craft’s
year.
prior
problems
her
credit
and observed
cause of
year
"property
question was a five
conviction in
Rockwall
4. Demos’ assault
VCR,
merits,
reversed,
a value
less than
old television
County
not
Court
Applicant
Brief for the
Judgment
$200.00.”
improper venue.
but on the basis of
Akin,
Appeals
M.
Court of
Fifth
of Justice Ted
Subsequently,
Applicant
Demos informed the Com-
The
further
states
mittee that he
had
received notice of
respect
cannot have
institution
hearing and, consequent-
the second formal
undeserving
(sic) respect.
that is
of its
ly, the Committee scheduled a third formal
does
Applicant
states that for this he
hearing for September
1987. Demos
(sic).
apoligize
not need to
appeared and offered evidence at that hear-
Applicant’s supplemental brief at 15.
Thereafter,
ing.
Supplemen-
in its Second
ex-
that “Mr. Demos’
Committee observed
Report
tal
Recommendation dated
planation that
made
these statements were
23, 1988, the Committee evaluated Demos’
true
anger
and are not indicative of his
explanation
the matters
had arisen
judicial system
did little
...
*4
Texas, and
applica-
in
then
his
reevaluated
quiet
to
the
concerns.” Com-
Committee’s
light
in
of
case
the
pertinent
tion
law and
on
mittee Admissions Second
of this
The
rules
court.
Committee recom-
Report
May
and Recommendation of
mended,
dissent,
again
once
without
that
1988, at 6.
the court
admission to Demos.
distinguish
The Committee went
to
discussion,
In its
the Committee indicated
Demos’ case
recent decisions on
from our
opinion
it remained of the
that
the
Manville, Strauss,
applications
the
of
and
entry
judgment
contempt
the
of
Texas
of
II),
(Manville
Brooks.
Manville
See In re
appli-
Demos “is evidence of the
(en
(D.C.1988)
banc). Re-
A.2d 1128
respect
cant’s lack of
for the
and
judiciary
instances,
marking that in those
this court
poorly upon
competence
reflects
his
to com-
fit to admit
had been
saw
who
individuals
port himself in
a
expected
the manner
felonies,
convicted of serious
the Commit-
member of the District of
Bar.”
Columbia
tee observed:
Supplemental Report, May
Second
expressed
at 6. The Committee also
its
cases,
period of
In those
a considerable
grave concern
in his
about statements
brief
passed
applicants’
had
since the
time
which,
view,
in the Committee’s
indicated
behavior,
criminal
there was substantial
respect
judiciary.
lack of
The
his
there was
evidence
rehabilitation and
referring
following
to
Committee was
ample
evidence of remorse on the
in
passage
supplemental
brief
lacking
applicants. These
indicia are
support
application
of his
for admission:
His
oc-
in Mr. Demos’ case.
conviction
Furthermore,
Applicant
agree-
years,
last few
he has
curred within the
ment with the Committee’s statement
has
little
of remorse and
shown
evidence
(sic)
that “his actions shows
his lack of
to
presented no evidence
respect
County judi-
the Rockwall
part.
efforts on his
rehabilitative
ciary[.”]
Supple-
on Admissions Second
Applicant
judi-
respect
cannot
a
Report
and Recommendation
mental
favors,
ciary system
political
a
set
then
at 6. The Committee
judge
legal
system which the
has no
in New
alluded to Demos’ earlier behavior
law
qualifications, of one
uses the
Mexico,
un-
that it remained
and concluded
(sic)
gain,
personal
for their own
and on
this
willing
certify
his admission to
humil-
attempts
intimidate and
willing
speak
those
iate
who
proceedings that
truth.
This statement of
to the unanimous recommendations
led
Applicant
further states that
lays the nec-
on Admissions
respect
system anymore
cannot
such
groundwork
delineating the rea-
essary
government
he can
tha[n]
agree
recom-
the Committee’s
sons we
with
by
its
and
defies
own laws
constitution
to our bar.
mendation not to admit Demos
money
supplying arms and
to the rebels
events in the
The sum of several
State
Nicaragua, by maintaining secret
upon the
accounts,
Mexico casts serious doubt
justifies
deception New
bank
its
These
his be-
decaring (sic)
they
applicant’s
remem-
character.
include
by
cannot
Martinez,
by Judge
ing
contempt
held in
ber.
County,
Texas
County
his lack of
before the New Mexico
Court
Rockwall
candor
In
his
of court.
found
that Demos was in
distinguish
important
of law
State
it is
regard,
New
as found
the Committee. our
I and Manville
decisions Manville
There is
of the Com-
II,
also
observation
II’s hold-
supra.
applying Manville
appli-
mittee that it was convinced that
ing,
in evalu-
emphasized
it should
forthright
had
cant
honest and
been
person
ating
of a
who
testimony
before the Committee at its
background, there
convictionin his
criminal
hearing. Report
December
formal
weigh-
simply
more
than
is much
involved
1984, at
This conclusion followed the
that conviction
ing the seriousness of
hear"
opportunity
Committee’s
by Man-
the offenses committed
alongside
testimony
lengthy
and to ville, Brooks,
Strauss,
assign-
then
observe him firsthand as he answered
ing
weight com-
applicant’s
conviction
past
questions
number of
about
behav-
relative seriousness.
mensurate
I,
As
ior.
we said Manville
not a
opinion in Manville II is
Our en banc
accept findings
of fact made
relatively
signal
it will be
that henceforth
*5
unsupported
they
Committee unless
of-
easy
committed
persons
who have
evidence of record.
substantial
See
manslaughter,
than
fenses less heinous
Heller,
(D.C.)
re
333 A.2d
402
In
drug
robbery,
illegal
transactions
armed
curiam),
denied, 423
(per
cert.
U.S.
the District of Co-
members of
become
(1975).
96 S.Ct.
yers every day. Their the courtroom professional range
talents skills appalling. I think is a
brilliant to there He
place spectrum on that for Mr. Demos. worst, neither nor
would be the best record us is no
but before there
reason to him admission to the bar. BAKER,
In re Robert Petitioner.
No. 88-223. Appeals.
District of Court of Columbia
Argued June Aug.
Decided Isbell, S. B. with whom Thomas
David Bederman, Williamson, J. Jr. David brief, D.C., ap- Washington, were on curiae, for amici pointed by the petitioner. D.C., Reischel, Washington,
Charles L. respondent,. on Admissions. *9 NEWMAN, FERREN and Before TERRY, Judges. Associate
NEWMAN, Judge: applied for admission Robert Baker the District of Columbia Rule pursuant December 46(c)(3)(i) of the Rules of permits Appeals, Columbia Court standing for five active membér