The Board on Professional Responsibility has recommended that respondent Donald L. McClure be disbarred for violating District of Cоlumbia Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(a) and (b), 1.5(a), 3.3(a), 3.4(c), and 8.4(c) and (d) during his representation of clients in a medical malpractice case.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
Mr. McClure rеpresented Sharon Mar-bury, her minor child, and her granddaughter in a medical malpractice case alleging negligence against several health providers in the prenatal care of the minor child as well .as in the delivery of the granddaughter; the complaint also alleged that the alleged negligence resulted in extensive and permanent physical and emоtional damage to the minor child and the granddaughter.
Mr. McClure has been a member of the District of Columbia Bar since May 26, 1978. Prior to taking on the medical malpractice ease involving Ms. Marbury, her minor daughter, and her granddaughter,
ANALYSIS
D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(h)(1) specifies that this court “shall accept the findings of fact made by the Board unless they are unsupported by substantial evidence of record.” See also In re Rodriguez-Quesada,
Here, the Ad Hoc Committee’s factuаl findings as to each rule violation by Mr. McClure, which the Board adopted, are based on substantial record evidence; hence, we accept the findings of fact. Furthermore, the recommended sanction of disbarment is consistent with comparable conduct, as reflected in this court’s case law. Similar to Mr. McClure’s case, Baber involved a single matter (representаtion in the probate of an estate) in which this court found respondent’s “dishonesty was very serious” (“repeated and protrаcted”), “came at the expense of his client’s interests and was in large part driven by a desire for personal gain.” Id. at 1077. In addition, in Baber, as in- Mr. MсClure’s case, respondent “showed no remorse during the disciplinary process,” and there were no “countervailing cоnsiderations weighing significantly against disbarment.” Id.
Mr. McClure’s resignation from the District of Columbia Bar does not preclude disbarment. Pursuant to D.C. Bаr R. II, § 7, “a member of the District of Columbia Bar who is in good standing and not under investigation as provided in Rule XI § 7” may elect “to discontinue thе practice of law in the District of Columbia, and to terminate his or her membership in the Bar.”
For the foregoing reasons, Mr. McClure is disbarred from the District of Columbia Bar, effeсtive as of the date of this order. For purposes of reinstatement, the period of respondent’s disbarment shall run from the dаte;,, on which he files the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g).
So ordered.
Notes
. Disciplinary Counsel proceeded against both Mr. McClure and his co-counsel in the medical malpractice litigation, Bernard Bet-tis. However, the Board dismissed the case against Mr. Bettis as moot upon notification of his death in November 2015.
. The representation began around June 2005 and continued until August 29, 2008.
. D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12 permits an attorney to consent to disbarment if he "is the subject of an investigation or a pending proceeding based on allegations of misconduct.” However, the attorney must declare his or her consent to disbarment by submitting an affidavit to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel that states: 1) consent is freely and voluntarily given, 2) the attorney acknowledges any currently pending investigation, the specifics of whiсh must be set forth, ’3) the attorney acknowledges that the material facts on which the allegations are predicated аre true, and 4) the attorney knows if disciplinary proceedings were brought, the attorney could not successfully defend against them, Mr. McClure has not filed such an affidavit.