*1 247 Goldfrank, Atty., Executive Joan L. D.C., the Profes- THOMPSON, Washington, for Bd. on Raymond Respon- B. In re Responsibility. dent, sional A of the Bar of the Dis- Member Appeals. of Columbia Court of trict PRYOR, Judge, Before Chief and No. 85-416. NEWMAN, Associate MACK and Appeals. of of
District Columbia Court Judges. 6, Argued 1985. Dec. PER CURIAM: 30, Decided Dec. 1987.1 report a recom-
This is a review of and Board mendation of the on Professional (Board) Ray- Responsibility which found 1-102(A)(4) Thompson mond B. violated DR assisting in by knowingly presentation the Immigration the and of false to statements (INS) support in of Naturalization Service application client as a the of his for status of permanent majority alien.2 The resident be respondent the Board recommended that practice six suspended from the of law for record, a of we months. After review the accept findings modify the the Board’s but Board’s We con- recommended sanction. suspended respondent clude should that be year. from of law one practice the for Dorsey’s Betty At the of Mrs. B. time application permanent for resident alien status, and her worked both she husband Pennsylvania. During a subse- and lived in interview, Dorsey re- quent Mrs. INS Maryland address affirmed a residential Virgi- County, in employment and Fairfax by Following investigation further nia. INS, by a federal respondent was indicted Scott, D.C., Nigel Washington, L. for re- Maryland for grand jury for the District of spondent. statute, 18 a federal U.S.C. violation of (1982).3 Ultimately, into Counsel, 1001 he entered Frisch, Michael S. Bar Asst. § which, Henderson, Jr., agreement prosecution whom an with the with Thomas H. Bar things, provided he Counsel, D.C., among that Washington, at the time the other filed, brief, practicing before from law peti- brief was on the for would refrain was tioner, year.4 the Bar Counsel. the INS for one Office of statute, charged Thompson originally was re- 3. Under the 1. The decision in this case was Opinion Judg- counseling aiding, abetting, a willfully leased as Memorandum and and with being published pursuant is ment. It to the making procuring and state- the use of false granting request court’s order the Board’s for ments to INS. publication. 2. DR 1-102 Misconduct (A) fraud, deceit, misrepresentation. (4) Engage A [******] lawyer provides: in conduct shall not: or involving dishonesty, 4. The application mitted Maryland agreement knowing address that Mrs. at the also or work in Dorsey stated that time of the did Virginia. Thompson ad- not live filing of at the the *2 248 Hearing Committee, respon- the aspects However,
Before from Hutchinson’s. it is knowing Dorsey dent denied that Mrs. did beyond argument that there awas clear Maryland not live at the or in address work obligation failure of the to public the and to interview; Virginia at time of the her INS profession the to scrupulously be honest. having any he also denied role in Mrs. Thirdly, that, Hutchinson, note we unlike INS, Dorsey stating so to the and further respondent prior profes- a history had of telling investigator denied an INS that he discipline. sional had leased house Dorseys. his to the The Accordingly, we therefore conclude that Hearing testimony Committee the credited respondent suspended should be from the of INS official and Dorsey, an Mrs. who practice of for year. law one This order of exchange in immunity testified for from suspension days shall be effective 30 from prosecution. Hearing The Committee dis- opinion. XI, the date of this D.C. Bar R. testimony respondent, the credited of find- 19(3). § ing that he the knew statements to be false So ordered. proffered agency. when he to the them The Board found these were conclusions supported by substantial evidence and thus NEWMAN, Judge, concurring: Associate adopted them. We do the same. expressed in my I reiterate the I views appeal, respondent challenges On the concurring opinion Hutchinson, supra. in suspension sanction of six months recom- I join I the here for deem a one results Board, by
mended the as does the office of year suspension appropriate. to be Counsel, argues stronger Bar that which a necessary. sanction is task straightfor-
Our in this is instance Giving
ward. due to deference the recom- Board,
mendations of the we must strive to
impose a discipline that is consistent with Hines,
other similar cases. In re 482 A.2d
378, (D.C.1984); see 384 also D.C. R. Bar XI, 7(3). conclusion, reaching In we a § George FLOYD, Appellant, often among have reiterated that the rele- v. are, vant factors to considered na- be the violation, mitigating ture the aggra- of and STATES, Appellee. UNITED circumstances, vating protection of the No. 86-1222. public, and, legal courts and the profession, determined, to the extent it can be moral District of Appeals. of Columbia Court Hutchinson, re of In attorney. fitness the 919, (D.C.1987) (en banc). 534 A.2d 924 12, Submitted Jan. 1988. 7, addressing particular In Decided March the circumstanc- 1988. case, es this of state the that we at outset appreciate Hearing
we the that neither
Committee nor Board had the the benefit recent Hutchinson
of our opinion in reach-
ing Nonetheless, a decision. we conclude case, present
that in as- the all material
pects, governed by is that decision. misrepresentation to a
We observe that quite in agency
federal is serious. As
Hutchinson, respondent in in- the this required
stance was to confront federal
prosecution. sure, dishonesty beTo the respondent
attributed to in differed some