*1 still true and correct and no were] STEADMAN, Before BELSON respect place taken ha[d] MACK, Judges, and Senior Associate personal would re- situation which [his] Judge.** qualifications flect on [his] PER CURIAM: Mary- to be admitted as a member land bar.... attorney discipline must alleged in this case stems respondent misrepresented The misconduct decide whether respondent’s purportedly false applying for admission in from material facts underly- Disciplinary Rule rather than from his answer Maryland in violation of * deliberately Opinion failed to disclose a materi- if he has This case was decided Memorandum with, Judgment, being published upon but is al fact in connection publish. granting petitioner’s motion to the bar.” admission to ** Judge Judge of the Mack was an Associate recommendation, the Board’s argument. 2. At the time of court at the time of She was com- suspen- Judge imposed if a on December missioned as a Senior such condition longer year. than a Effective sion were for September our rules were amended any suspension. 1-101(A) Rule lawyer subject allow such a condition to 1. DR reads: “A in, XI, 3(a)(2). discipline § if he has made a false statement *2 complaints and ing questionnaire, against two misconduct one in filing. prosecution correct at the of for misconduct the District knowledge It is of Columbia. common disciplinary proceeding Maryland At a legal application that bar profession the Court, respondent Circuit testified that applicant’s designed are to review an forms signing the he to had failed review to character and fitness questionnaire, the affidavit and and did not hardly contended that the oath it can be suggested, in recall its contents. He also ambiguous; any itself was even if doubt defense, he had or that misunderstood of scope can be about the infor- harbored ambiguous purportedly misread the lan- might unfavorably mation that reflect on guage of the in its oath. application, can be no respondent’s there findings, “Although the court the stated: prosecution and doubt that Court is satisfied that Zalel Rosen’s Sol professional misconduct fell well within its intentional, conduct was not nevertheless stood to benefit frontiers. the finds Court the act here was done with from the nondisclosure information de- indifference, equivalence legal reckless the Maryland application, trimental to his bar Thereafter, respondent’s of deliberate.” and, complete favored over the control request agreement Mary- and with the Maryland’s licensing flow of information to counsel, land Maryland the Court authorities, withheld that information Appeals charges the dismissed allowed affirmatively misstating the facts respondent resign to In oath. re 538 A.2d prejudice. bar with (D.C.1988). Disciplinary hearings the followed before respondent We are satisfied that acted in District of Columbia Board on Professional truth, disregard reckless of the in that his Responsibility, respon- which found that oath casual treatment the evinced an 1-101(A), dent had DR violated recom- culpable contempt obvious and for an attor- mended his a duty ney’s to be candid. Since this case hearing first On misrepresentation a involves material rath- by unpublished we remanded order for nondisclosure, a er than mere “deliberate- complete findings more toas is strict ness” under the lan- found, state mind. The Board then 1-101(A). 1-101(A) pro- guage of DR it, already the basis the evidence separately language vides and in distinct that had acted with reckless materially false statements and deliber- falsity as to the truth or Certainly, the lan- ate failures to disclose. he supplied Maryland, information had guage syntax suggest of the Rule that further, that if scienter premises a distinction is warranted: 1-101(A), to show a violation DR such (1) lawyer’s sanctions on either a material- could scienter be inferred from this reck- statement, (2) ly false his deliberate less conduct. now contends fact, in con- failure disclose material that unsupported by this outcome was the nection with an for admission. evidence before the Board. provision clearly in the dis- The is stated junctive, the relevant clauses set off II requirement of ma- by commas. While the agree with the Board teriality in either alternative dent had the of scienter to level sanctions, the ground for imposition the sanctions. conspicuously deliberateness under no stated oath that from one. place, in his status had taken since rule, affidavit, Looking grammar filing beyond distinction, extent it was “which would reflect on his drafters, qualification also makes sense. admitted as a intended member very concept Yet at Nondisclosure is more elusive bar....” easily actively defending misrepresentation, and more at- moment was himself essentially Any statement has committed tributed to inadvertence. misconduct, egre- necessarily the omission of facts same but under far less involves irrelevant, speaker gious deems and this circumstances. consideration subjec- judgment necessarily respondent’s prior exposure to sanctions in contrast, misrep- tive. resulting affirmative harm Maryland, the lack of *3 readily violation, resentation of facts available re- any client from the instant speaker, though demonstrably motivat- spondent’s cooperation with Bar Counsel deceive, by ed an intent to is more blame- prior and his record as an avoid, worthy, easy it advocate, both because is so we order that be sus- it is more with an pended practicing because consistent in the District from law months, intent to deceive than a material omission. period for the of nine Columbia Thus, might that, upon we be less inclined to sanction requirement with the added ar- omission, attorney an some riving eligibility for an for reinstatement deceive, proof theory satisfactory of an intent to on the practice, active he furnish penalize that it is fairer to individuals for proof of his rehabilitation. negligent misrepresentation readily ac- cessible facts than to do so for an absent- TV
minded include information omission to Accordingly, it is that, perhaps subjectively, deemed relevant. and ADJUDGED that re- ORDERED suspended practice 1-101(A) problematic to the extent requirement law for nine it indicates no “state of that he demonstrate misrepresenta mind” to render affirmative precondition to readmission to authority, tions sanctionable. There is however, the reckless ordered. So standard articulated court Jordan, in this case. 106 e.g., See In re ORDER ON PETITION FOR Ill.2d 88 Ill.Dec. 478 N.E.2d REHEARING (1985) (respondent showed “serious truth”); lack of concern for the In re Del PER CURIAM. Rio, 407 Mich. 285 N.W.2d This matter is the division on re- (1979) (respondent “inexcusa showed spondent’s petition rehearing. Respon- failing ble laxness in ... re alia, challenges, court’s im- dent inter quested [although] documents we are not proof position of reha- respondent willfully convinced that [misled] reinstatement in bilitation as a condition of Bar”). Accordingly, apply State conjunction period suspension with a here. year. Respondent argues less than one pro- court’s sanction offends due Ill in that it is a retroactive cess not available at the It remains for us to determine a a sanction that was conduct, respondent’s sanctioned appropriate sanction mis- time of given oppor- as to he was not conduct and his status. Bar unper- argument is requested tunity from to be heard. His Counsel has fully on Respondent heard practice for a suasive. law the issue of whether he should be supra, was dis- rehabilitation before for fail- to establish barred the District of Columbia being applica- allowed to resume ing to disclose on a concluded that he should in a former law. The division tion that he had been involved so. insurance to do denying lawsuit his claim for life ap- prejudiced policy, grounds that he benefited rather under his wife’s According- the amended rule. intentionally plication her in order to caused death Here, proceeds policy. ly, it is obtain the respondent’s peti- ORDERED be, is, hereby and it denied.
tion WRIGHT, Appellant,
Samuel
v. *4 America, Appellee.
UNITED STATES of
District of of Appeals. Columbia Court Oct.
Decided Feb. Goodbread, D.C., Washington,
Ronald A. D’Antuono, ap- appellant. Frances M. court, pointed appellant. Black, Atty., Asst. U.S.
Thomas C. Jay Stephens, Atty., and B. U.S. whom Farrell, Atty., Asst. U.S. Michael W. filed, and Thomas J. brief was Tourish, Atty., Washington, Asst. U.S. D.C., appellee. were on ROGERS, Judge, and Before Chief FERREN, Associate NEWMAN and Judges.