*1 REID, Before TERRY and Associate KING, Judges, Judge. Senior KING, Judge: Senior case time. This is before us second it, we we said that When last considered (“Sims”) pled guilty had Nathaniel Sims §§ under conflict of interest 18 U.S.C. offense, 216(a)(1), a misdemeanor determined to be a non- which Nathaniel serious misdemeanor. (D.C.2004)(‘Nims 353, 357 ”). receiving After con notice Sims’s viction, specification Bar Counsel filed charges that his conduct violated alleging 8.4(d) 8.4(c), 8.4(b), Dis Rules of Professional trict of Columbia Rules Conduct, conviction for a and also of moral constituted crime pursuant for disbarment grounds 11-2503(a). com D.C.Code 8.4(b), Rules mittee found a violation of 8.4(d), concluded, 8.4(c), as mat but law, that a non-serious misdemeanor ter finding of moral support never could disagreed on the The Board turpitude. pre point, ruling that on facts latter conduct constituted sented Sims’s turpitude. Sims held that this non-serious Peters, Counsel, could constitute offense

Joyce with misdemeanor E. Herman, turpitude, depending involving moral A. Senior Assis- whom Elizabeth *2 2 underlying existence, then longer facts. We directed a hearing remand to a

the Board to remand the case the hear not practicable. committee is Accordingly, committee, permit it to determine if grant we the motion to vacate the order to facts hearing adduced at remand and reach the issue of whether sufficient to establish that Sims’s conduct turpi- Sims’s conduct constitutes moral conclude, constituted turpitude Board, moral under tude.1 as did We that (See standards we set forth. In re Sims’s conduct turpi- constituted moral 510, Sneed, (D.C.2000); tude, A.2d In 766 513 re accordingly order that be Sims 591, (D.C.1996); 594 673 In re disbarred. McBride, (en (D.C.1992) 602 A.2d 632 pleaded guilty Sims count of one banc); Colson, In re 412 A.2d 1160 interest, conflict 18 U.S.C. 1979) (en banc)). I, In misdemeanor. we said that Bar Counsel has moved to vacate our crimes, “although certain including misde advising hearing remand order that [whether meanors determined to ‘seri be originally committee that conducted the ‘non-serious’], or may ous’ denoted constituted, hearing is no longer and that se, crimes of moral turpitude per impossible it would be to reconstitute the may turpitude constitute crimes of moral original committee because two of the under ‘the transgres circumstances of the ” hearing members that conducted are sion.’ A.2d at (quoting 361 re longer any hearing committee. Bar 635). McBride, supra, 602 A.2d at We argues Counsel that our order would ne- turpitude have defined moral an act cessitate remand on record to a a closed (1) that offends generally accepted hearing new would un- committee which (2) mankind; moral one of code .is the disciplinary system’s policy dermine vileness, baseness, depravity pri or in the having hearing make factual committees social vate and duties which a man owes instance, determinations the first includ- society general, his fellow men or to ing consideration of of the the demeanor contrary customary to the accepted rule Micheel,

witnesses. rights and duties man and between (D.C.1992). (3) man; justice, is conduct contrary or that, agree honesty, modesty good

We with Counsel be- Col morals. (citations omitted).2 son, original hearing cause committee is no response concept its we 1. In to Bar Counsel’s motion the In Sims further examined the requested noted, also turpitude Board vacatur remand moral inter alia: agreeing position order Bar Counsel's Colson, (D.C.1979) the matter should to the not be remanded (en banc) insight provide and other cases argued, committee. how- The Board legal into determination whether a as to ever, opportunity given that it should be misdemeanor offense rises to the level of . a new recommendation consistent with issue turpitude, a "term ... has [which] opinion in Sims I. We to take that our decline less than finite definition.” Id. at 1167. we course because are satisfied adopted dictionary "This court definition already Report has issued a and Rec- Tidwell, turpitude" in Colson. su- of moral with the ommendation was consistent 957; pra, A.2d at is: legal principles we Sims Ac- set forth in I. baseness, depravity An act of vileness or cordingly, while we are mindful of the private which a in the and social duties important assisting the court Board's role in cases, [or [or owes to deciding disciplinary woman] her] man conclude society [or fellow men or to women] there is no reason Board to con- for the contrary general, accepted sider case further. ets, for the disposition code he used a “re- The Board concluded Sims’s placed upon him that a peated of the trust that reflected abuse dismissed tickets in order to employee as a government than himself ad- hearing examiner other *3 financially himself satisfies benefit judicated the tickets. for moral We turpitude”. Colson criteria [Sims], he of actions As a result these Report

are that the Board’s satisfied fines and family paying and his avoided with the Recommendation was consistent 1,280. in the amount penalties $ late legal principles set forth Sims we both therefore, opinion, and we I and in this I, at 844 A.2d supra, Sims Board’s recommenda- will defer hearing where it ex- conducting a After Romansky, tions. See re witnesses, including and con- amined 311, (D.C.2003); In re Goffe, 318 evidence, hearing documentary sidered 458, (D.C.1994); In Hutchin- 463-64 that had violat- committee concluded Sims (D.C.1987) (en son, 919, A.2d 924 534 8.4(d) 8.4(c), 8.4(b), ed Rules banc); 422 Haupt, In re A.2d 771 (D.C.1980). large he a number of found that dismissed of his in which he or members tickets hearing The committee found that dur- interest; personal family had a financial ques- period when conduct en- personal that acted for his own Sims tion employed occurred Sims was richment; so in his official ca- that he did Bureau Traffic District of Columbia Ad- (“BTA”) judication occurred over an hearing pacity; as a examiner. that conduct disputes capacity, time; that Sims would hear was fa- period of that Sims extended relating parking to violations of laws. Adjudica- miliar the Board Traffic with authority cita- While he had to dismiss (“BTA”) adjudica- policy precluding tion him, poli- a brought tions before BTA had employees; that affect BTA tion of matters cy prohibited hearing that examiner the result of that acts were not Sims’s from ticket he or a adjudicating a which inexperience proven psychological or a had family member of his been issued. the facts did not contest condition. Sims hearing findings The committee’s factual Finally, although acts. underlying these following: included the he not used the Sims testified that had investigation The revealed that on [FBI] adjudicators to disposition of other codes 20 October 1995 occasions between tickets, dismiss some January 31, dismissed [Sims] clearly committee found that evidence registered citations issued to vehicles had in fact used the indicated Sims him, wife, daughters. his and two his adjudica- of the other disposition codes by logging effected the dismissals [Sims] tors.3 system with computer into the BTA of this case facts and circumstances password.

identification code and secret Tucker, are to those in majority very of those tick- similar respect With to a customary right duty that Sims dismissed between 3. The concluded rule of woman], he or his large of tickets which and man number [or woman] [or man interest; I, (quoting family financial supra, 844 Col A.2d enrichment; son, that he (quoting for his own supra, 412 acted (Rawle’s capacity; his official conduct acted in BOUV. LAW DICTIONARY time; and, Revision))). long period of place over a discussion of took Third For further standards, was in- was aware that see that he this court’s moral policy. consistent BTA Sims 844 A.2d at 361-62. supra, 766 A.2d at 510.4 In an manipulated the records himself for his attorney was convicted attempted brib- gain. own We no real see distinction ery, misdemeanor, engaging the nature of the conduct involved. There- pattern of behavior designed to “fix” park- fore, conduct, conclude Sims’s like ing tickets. paid money to an offi- Tucker’s, turpitude. involved moral cial employed in adju- the traffic violation dissenting colleague argues Our that the who, dication department part of his disposition this case is inconsistent with official authority, manipulated the comput- attorneys two other cases where the er records to appear make it misdemeanors, convicted of but there was tickets had either paid in full or were *4 finding of moral turpitude. See In re never paid issued. Tucker money the Abrahamson, (D.C.2004); 852 A.2d 949 In employee the in personal capacity McBride, (D.C.1994) re 642 A.2d 1270 which meant the District was deprived of (McBride III). not agree. doWe The funds to which it was entitled. The Board facts in those cases were significantly dif- found that Tucker’s misconduct was “so at ferent from what occurred here. For ex- odds with his responsibility as a citizen ample, government as a employee with and member of the bar that it deeply adjudicative responsibilities, Sims held a offended general the moral right sense of position of considerable trust —a trust he and wrong.” Id. at 512. contrast, repeatedly. violated In there Tucker, In committee found was no special placed trust in either Abra- agreed, we attorney’s that the actions Moreover, hamson or McBride. Sims’s clearly involved dishonesty “intentional misconduct occurred at least 20 times personal gain” and that our under case law while the misconduct of both Abrahamson such a finding constituted moral turpitude. and McBride single consisted of a incident. Sneed, See In re 673 A.2d at 594 In (citing Finally, the Board found that Sims acted Untalan, 978, re (D.C.1993); 619 A.2d 979 “to benefit financially,” himself while Abra- Shorter, (D.C. In re 765 hamson personal had “no motivation to 1990); Kent, profit,” and McBride’s “acts were not moti- 1983)). We attorney’s concluded that the vated gain.” We think these conduct warranted disbarment. distinctions are support sufficient to The in facts essentially are Tucker conclusion that Sims’s amounted same as what occurred here: underly- turpitude while the conduct of ing conduct in both cases involved an at- Abrahamson and McBride did not. torney engaging in a scheme to “fix” multi- ple tickets, and, parking in There is no dispute knowingly both cases the that Sims attorney was convicted of a and illegally parking misdemeanor. eliminated citations only difference between from computer system the cases is BTA’s so that he in attorney paid BTA spared parking would be fines employee modify records, computer amount of His conduct constitutes $1280. while here BTA employee, placed abuse of the trust upon him as a 4. The (D.C.2002) (moral offense of conviction in Tucker was a turpitude misdemeanor, serious finding while the offense of made where conviction offense was a misdemeanor). conviction in the instant case was determined non-serious We concluded to be a non-serious misdemeanor. In Sims turpitude the determination of moral will per legal we held that there was no se bar to a be made and because the facts of finding that a non-serious misdemeanor could this case are so to those in similar turpitude. involve moral Bewig, See closely guidance. also re look at that case for my colleagues government employee. part company the stan- Under dissent, respectfully Colson, this matter and out in the conduct in dard set Mr. part view Sims has because justice, question “contrary honesty, and that un punished punishment morals,’’and modesty or good therefore period doubtedly will end his career. The on the facts. constitutes years, five of disbarment is least Colson, Accordingly, 412 A.2d at it process generally the reinstatement takes hereby is eighteen a minimum an additional ORDERED that Nathaniel dis- XI, 16(c); D.C. Bar R. months. See practice barred from the law (D.C.1997); Wiley, Columbia, District of and his name shall be (Farrell, Steele, J., supra, 630 A.2d at attorneys roll author- stricken from the person Sims’ concurring). For practice ized to before this court. age years of six un period excess So ordered. doubtedly resumption will preclude legal Equally important, be practice. REID, Judge, dissenting: Associate disposition lieve that Sims’ case *5 is inconsistent with at least two others purpose conducting disciplinary “Our underlying criminal involving misdemeanor proceedings imposing and sanctions convictions, later, Ias I do not and discuss Steele, attorney....” to punish the In re 766 A.2d 510 consider (D.C.1993); 200 also In see (Tucker 2000) II), as the out controlling Bettis, (D.C.App.2004). And, I on of Mr. case. cannot come Sims’ Rather, disciplinary our administering fight our case this record and of law system, impose protect sanctions to of agree that Mr. convicted a Sims was courts, legal profession, and “the the the the turpitude crime of moral on facts. Lenoir, public,” In re (D.C.1992). emphasize also “the con in sharp We Mr. case stands contrast Sims’ respondent tinued and restored fitness of an to of in In re Abra the hamson, (D.C.2004).1 Bettis, There, practice supra. to law.” $30,000.00, attempting pay distinguish $25.00 1. to of to a assessment. cases Mr. and contrast, $1,280.00 Sims, paid Abrahamson and Mr. McBride from of Mr. Sims, majority ignores parking tickets issued Mr. the factual "fixed” case, family, underpinnings of Mr. to and members of his a Abrahamson’s him other aspects $500.00 $25.00 “trust” of both Mr. Abrahamson's and fine and assessment. Un- cases, selectively respect Mr. McBride’s and reads the like Mr. Abrahamson with $1,280.00 $30,000.00, pri- paid records of Mr. Abrahamson’s case and that of respect per- plea guilty. of or of Mr. Abrahamson was Mr. Sims with to the element to year Factually, to one of Mr. Abrahamson sentenced in federal court sonal benefit. probation, originally with a condition of four months of was indicted with four others in detention, equity while was sen- charges conspiracy, of skim- home Mr. Sims funds, probation, eighteen ming, misappropriation months of with of federal and tenced audits, underlying records of federal all as a result of home detention. The obstruction show Mr. Sims' fixed federal in the two cases scheme those indicted divert twenty parking him use. tickets issued to funds to their own The scheme family, Abra- body members of his and that Mr. is outlined in the of dissent. Mr. investigation plea bargain a federal was able these hamson obstructed Abrahamson funds, compen- charges single superseding audit of federal and received into a misdemean- paid these for at charge; plea sation with federal funds Mr. Sims also entered period, part all of a single charge. part of a ten-month misdemeanor As least case, scheme divert federal funds. Mr. Abrahamson fraudulent settlement of position trust as the ma- judgment Sims’ involved agreed to amount of Mr. confess Mr. Abrahamson plea “guilty entered a recommendation that Mr. Abrahamson to one suspended misdemeanor count of unlawful should be from practice re- months, ceipt only six compensation with law a require- intent to defeat without ment purposes show fitness as a of the condition of Depart- United States reinstatement. ment of Housing and Development Urban in violation 1012.” Id. of 18 U.S.C. Before superseding misdemeanor in- accepted We the Board’s determina- formation to which he entered a tion that Mr. crime Abrahamson’s was not against Abrahamson, was filed one of on the he had been indicted with others on feder- 8.4(c) that he did not violate Rule (1) felony al charges conspiracy to em- Rules of Professional Conduct. We bezzle, steal, obtain fraud and misapply agreed Board; however, with the (2) that Mr. ....; property ...; equity skimming 8.4(b) 3.4(a), (3) Abrahamson violated Rules ...; misappropriation of federal funds 8.4(d) (4) of the Rules of Professional obstruction of federal audits .... Conduct. We also accepted that Report Board’s and Recommendation of the Board jority emphasizes, but so did Mr. position special Abraham- was in as much of trust Indeed, colleagues, son's. he and his and the perhaps was Mr. even more so be- multiple entities created were entrusted colleagues cause he and his were entrusted $52 million in federal low-income hous- with millions of dollars earmarked to benefit monies between including 1990 and housing low-income tenants. Mr. McBride $10,000.00 housing payments assistance just position also was in as much a of trust year. each sentencing hearing, At his represented passport when he a client in a *6 judge trial asked Mr. Abrahamson to state agency, matter before a federal but assisted what he did between March committing passport 1996 and his client in fraud. Fi- 7, 1997, September "benefit, charge nally, relation to the I address the motiva- against reviewing him. He stated that profit” while respect tion to factor with to Mr. Sims by records that had been demanded body the Unit- in the though Even dissent. Attorney's ed Chicago, States office in he Abrahamson admitted in federal court that he “discovered clearly work orders that were paid withheld false work orders that were payment false and already had been with HUD funds from the United States Attor- auditors, made for the work reflected ney's in these in- office and the HUD and con- Although voices.'' he knew that a compensation federal tinued to receive from HUD funds, progress, audit "pulled’’ was in he .majority false the Board and the do not orders, over, work did not turn them personal gain and did attribute a motivation Instead, not Attorney inform the United States that he they apparently benefit to him. ac- them, though had withheld "even cept had at face value his statement at his disci- previously that, paid.” been plinary He admitted hearing despite that he [withholding "knew that charge the false receipt compensation orders] of "unlawful of impede would the United Attorney’s States purposes with intent to defeat the of the Unit- specified office and HUD in Department [the] audit of Housing [a ed States and Urban housing project],” and that Development he "continued to violation of U.S.C. 1012,” compensation receive company from ... a he "had intention to defeat the [no] having identity purposes plead interest with the owner but that was what had to [he] to, City apartment] [a New York guilty basically get my which re- to on with life. I mean, ceived funds from HUD.” He also nearly bankrupt. admitted I was I had to take ” that he “made deliberate my family Why decision not to care .... the Board did investigate project, whether that accept which was explana- not at face value Mr. Sims' tion, operated by persons also owned and respect [two as it did with to Mr. Abraham- him], son, short, originally who were indicted simply factually was is not clear. In submitting also respect work orders for work which well as with to the trust and motiva- done,” factors, was not and that he disposition "continued to tion I believe the of Mr. compensation receive company from this un- Sims’ case is with those inconsistent of Mr. September til 9th of 1997.” Mr. particular, Abrahamson Abrahamson in and Mr. McBride. understand, your Honor.” Id. at 9. Before Responsibility on Professional Abrahamson, in his disciplinary committee David No. 201- Docket “ 2004) matter, ‘any in- Mr. Abrahamson denied grew (May charges at 3. The ” purposes [of HUD]’ tention to defeat the operation realty out of manage- “that what I had and maintained that was owned, constructed, company ment which to, plead basically get to to on with repaired maintained and several “low-in- Later, however, he Id. at 13. life.” housing projects by come financed mort- acknowledged presenting “that not the[] by by issued gage notes HUD and secured firm and the company’s invoices law [to Id. housing projects themselves.” at 4. Attorney’s served office] United States management realty “devised company impede investigation.” Id. which could scheme divert [it] [its principals] large money gener- amounts Abraham- The Board determined Mr. housing pro- ated by the low-income the principles son’s case that under articu jects, though Colson, had projects even those lated in In re A.2d 1160 1979) banc) (en surplus Id. at cash.” 5. False work orders and In re 353(D.C.2004)(Sims I) developed conceal misde “[t]he invoices pled which Abrahamson] funds. meanor to [Mr. diverted guilty” involve moral Mr. Abrahmson was a shareholder of concept explained as that realty management company and a (D.C.1979) (en Colson, 412 A.2d at four partner housing of the low-income banc), and in 844 A.2d at 365-66. projects. Id. 6. After he Report 15-16. The Board found placed management on notice that the re- Abrahamson “Mr. removed docu alty company engaged in a fraudulent that he fraudulent ments determined were scheme, compensation he received whose ly employers from set of prepared source was HUD funds. Id. at provid knew documents would addition, realty when management government ed ‘documentation company hired a firm represent law it justify1 support’ or ‘invoices would *7 during a HUD audit and aby evaluation HUD”; payments previously made office, Attorney’s United States Mr. action, “that at the time of this removal Abrahmson removed fraudulent work or- objectives ‘obstructing his least one of was generated by company ders from docu- and that investigation’ “[al the HUD repre- ments submitted to the law firm to terminate em though he decided in the senting it audit and evaluation. Id. receiving compen ployment, he continued at 6-7. HUD, sation, indirectly by from provided proceed- Mr. Abrahamson’s During plea job.” he another employers until found and before he entered a Report at 16. The Board conclud Board in the States District Court however, United ed, “Respondent’s conduct York, the judge Eastern District of New ‘generally accepted ... not offend [did] Colson, mean in explained guilty plea mankind,’ what would A.2d moral code charged ‘You 1168[;] corruption the context of the crime: or involve [nor it] acted, vile, threats”; base, had would have to have “his conduct [nor] dishonest[;][and] justice pulled those work orders not because of or contrary profit any specifically accident or mistake but motivation there was contemplated by Court’s with the intent effect to defraud the manner Report at 17. With When asked whether under- decisions.” [HUD].” of Rule said, charged violation that, ‘Yes, respect I Mr. stood Abrahamson 8.4(c), the Board simply concluded: involving turpitude “We duct on the facts, agree 8.4(c), with the [Hearing] Committee that the violation of Rule and the respective imposed the evidence in this sanctions case does not establish Mr. Abra- hamson and Mr. I engaged [Mr. Sims. do not believe Abrahamson] conduct that a valid distinction is that Mr. fairly dishonest, can Abra- described as engaged crime, hamson in a white collar fraudulent or Respondent’s deceitful.” merely impede intended federal inves- therefore did not violate Rule tigation, 8.4(c). and received federal funds only The Hearing Committee found no indirectly aas result of his wrongdoing 8.4(c) violation of Rule because it did not and that of the others involved in the low- find that Mr. engaged Abrahamson in con housing income Nor can I agree scheme. duct involving turpitude on the that, unlike Mr. Abrahamson’s misdemean- Thus, facts. neither the Hearing Commit crime, Mr. Sims’ misdemeanor offense tee nor the Board concluded that Mr. rises to the level of moral on the 8.4(c) Abrahamson violated D.C. R. short, facts. I believe the Board in because “the evidence ... not estab [did] correctly applied Abrahamson’s case lish that engaged [he] conduct that the factors identified in Colson fairly can dishonest, be described as fraud regarding analysis of conduct involving ulent or deceitful.” Id. at 18-19. moral turpitude on the but did not Nevertheless, the Board found that Mr. do so in Mr. Sims’ case and therefore 8.4(b). (“It Abrahamson violated Rule Id. deference was not owed to the Board’s is professional lawyer misconduct for a analysis, proceed explain. as now commit a criminal act that reflects McBride, In In re was con . adversely lawyer’s on the honesty, trust- charge victed of a federal misdemeanor worthiness, lawyer or fitness other aiding abetting a client to commit respects.”) stated, As the Board McBride, passport fraud. See Abrahamson “was convicted of a crime (D.C.1990) curiam) (per that arose out of handling of fraudulent (McBride McBride, I); In re documents that had been used to unlawful- (D.C.1992) (en banc)(McBride II); ly obtain money from He HUD. acknowl- McBride, that, edged in returning the documents [to 1994)(McBride III). Initially the Board management realty he in- company], panel and a of this court determined that impede government tended to investiga- attorney’s conduct amounted to moral And, tion.” Id. at 18. the “commission of turpitude, McBride I. After the en banc *8 a crime that is intended to impede an adopted court reversed McBride investigation adversely reflects on a law- report and recommendation of the Board yer’s lawyer.” fitness as a Report Board finding no moral turpitude violation of on at 18. the facts. See McBride II and III. We taking Even account the factual dis- into suspended year Mr. McBride for one with development tinctions and nature of out a requirement, fitness instead of im Mr. Abrahamson’s case and that of Mr. posing originally disbarment recom Sims, as well as the deference standard prior analysis mended to its guides which our review of the Board’s concerning on the facts. recommendation, report and III, see In re supra, McBride at 1271. alsoWe Temple, (D.C.1993), adopted the Board’s view that the attor cannot comprehend the difference in ney’s “acts not person motivated for analysis of regard the cases with to con- al gain,” that his “conduct harmed no one similarity in that each and, superficial to a although misguided, was intended have attorney in such, parking involved tickets. The help “[h]is a Mend.” As conduct II, one a to entered turpitude.” McBride involve bribery. The attor of misdemeanor count III, setting at forth the supra, 1273. eight pay ney making admitted six to case, Mr. McBride’s the Board facts of “fix” to an BTA employee ments to age, length of member- noted his BTA to make sure that tickets and parking except in our Bar and his clean record ship of the tickets. payment records reflected plea, criminal his ser- for his misdemeanor agent a to “signed He statement a[n][FBI] attorney, Department of Justice vice as acknowledging describing the and scheme solo after retirement practice and his years.” it had over several that extended handling pro cases. which focused bono charged n. He was Id. at 511 1. developed sympathetic The Board also 11-2503(a), and violation of D.C.Code picture sought of the client Mr. McBride to 3.5(a) (seeking “Rule violation D.C. the act that to his help, labeled led official); Rule or other judge to influence misdemeanor conviction “aberrational.” 8.4(a) attempting to violate (violating Id. at 1272-73. There are factual differ- 8.4(b) Rules), (committing Rule a criminal regarding ences misde- Mr. McBride’s act; engaging involving in conduct dishon meanor conviction and of Mr. Sims. fraud, esty, misrepresentation); deceit or But, ultimately it is instructive 8.4(d) (engaging and Rule Board and this aber- court considered the seriously with administration interferes conduct, nature rational of Mr. McBride’s justice).” prove Id. 512. To its case work, age, pro prior bono and his Tucker, sought Bar Counsel against Mr. attorney deciding clean record as an an from court “di and received order suspend year Mr. McBride for one without Investiga Bureau recting the Federal Moreover, requirement. a fitness (FBI) produce tion materials relevant reaching its as to conclusion whether an disciplinary and to make proceeding turpi- McBride’s conduct involved moral tes agent provide FBI available to related tude on facts because “a desire A.2d timony.” personal gain” the Board cited In re Short- (D.C.1997) (Tucker I). order 1214-15 er, (D.C.1990), a case testi agent present authorized the FBI an which was convicted of one during mony Mr. Tucker’s before felony count of willful tax and six evasion Four, present Hearing Committee misdemeanor counts of willful failure recordings relating to “audio video taxes, pay id. “al- stating alleged to bribe attempts [Mr. Tucker’s] though may legal- acts [Mr. McBride’s] be employee of the District of Columbia ethically blameworthy, ly cannot upon Id. at Based government.” depraved said to be or vile.” McBride hearing, presented during the the evidence III, 642 A.2d at 1273.2 Hearing Committee determined further, analyzing Before Mr. Sims’ case clearly convincingly “Bar Counsel *9 to In I turn in Tucker’s conduct showed [Mr.] curiam) (Tucker II). (D.C.2000) (per Mr. facts be moral the volved case, view, surrounding is not facts totality Sims’ the same cause the II, dis- although that of Tucker cases conduct involved sufficient intentional these necessarily in- prior [against Mr. did Shorter] 2. Shorter decided McBride II III, involving turpitude.” supra. We Shorter McBride concluded in clude specific charges underlying "the acts Id. at 766. honesty purpose personal gain.” for the Acting those of the Chief of the BTA and a agreed The Board Hearing project manager responsible TIMS, Com- fo- mittee, and this adopted report mainly court cused processing on data issues. and recommendation of the Board that Mr. There was one interview with a BTA hear- Tucker should be disbarred “because there examiner who did not know Mr. Sims [was] substantial evidence in provided [the] case well and who- no information support finding turpitude.” about wrongdoing. hearing Another II, Tucker 766 A.2d at 513. examiner knew Mr. Sims well and de- examiner”; scribed him “a fair hearing Mr. Sims not enter a plea Mr. provided legal Sims has representa- Tucker; bribery, misdemeanor as did Mr. tion for this examiner twice civil mat- rather his was to one count of misde- A Acting ters. former Chief of the BTA Moreover, meanor conflict of interest. portrayed Mr. Sims “as a lackluster stu- sharp case, contrast to Mr. Sims’ the evi- dent and “dodged responsi- trainee” who produced dence by Bar Counsel bility” and applica- “was not astute II testimony included by agent an FBI However, tion of the law.” person Committee, Hearing before the and audio provided regarding no information the con- videotapes made the FBI. Bar underlying duct Mr. Sims’ criminal convic- presented testimony Counsel during tion. hearing Hearing Sims’ before Com- Four, mittee documentary and relied on During plea hearing, Mr. Sims’ pros- evidence. That documentary evidence in- ecutor summarized his wrongful actions cluded the results of the investigation by but did not address his intent or motiva- agents, two FBI “Yes, Honor,” on which Bar By saying, Counsel tion.3 Your relied. These presented results were acknowledged prosecutor that the ac- unsigned FBI report rather than an curately affida- happened” described “what' but report vit. was based on interviews did not comment further. At Mr. Sims’ with at least six sentencing hearing, individuals. There is no the prosecutor also indication in the record that the individuals made a again say statement but did not gave testimony penalty sworn anything regarding under his intent or motiva- perjury. reports, Two of the interview tion.4 Mr. Sims made a statement at his prosecutor principal part: 3. The stated in cated 19 other tickets which affected him or family suspension and resulted in a 9, 1996, On December Ticket Number penalties totaling fines and late an addition- 202711902 was issued to the car leased $1,230.00. al display the Defendant for failure to a front tag $50.00 and a fine was assessed. On the prosecutor 4. The asserted: Defendant, day, acting same in his offi- presentence report, As set forth in the examiner, capacity hearing as a cial dis- Defendant, occupying position while merits, thereby missed the ticket on the examiner, hearing adjudicated sepa- suspending $50.00 fine. The evidence rate tickets that had been issued to himself which demonstrates the Defendant family. and to members of his And he did hearing made that decision consists of a that, despite the fact that there was an completed signed record which he explicit prohibition handling of him matters the fact that the decision was entered into concerning family. or his In addi- himself computer system, using BTA’s tion, instances, Defen- majority in a of those password dant's identification number and attempted adju- to conceal the fact that he only which was known to him. by entering dicated the matters into the The evidence would further have computer shown the examiner code of another between October 26th of 1995 and examiner. These actions cost *10 $1,280.00. February adjudi- 4 of the Defendant D.C. Government they challenge would sentencing but to the correct.” And speak specific did not underlying say his offense.5 minute “You are and I’m a late. AWOL,” and so then getting charged Hearing At the Commit- hearing before of writing to that would lead another Four, questions response tee and in to appeal pro- onto grievance and then the attorney, from his Mr. Sims testified about just and ongoing this was cess ... and BTA, policies the the unsuccessful just pro- ... it an inherent driven was get to of his tickets resolved efforts some I chal- would do was cess that whatever supervisor acting the by his and chief just lenged it was a whole bias and so BTA, and his successful resolution feeling. process, my tickets to a is when he submitted those new BTA administrator. His asked: “people sub- He that other would claimed your was tick- perception why “[W]hat they get exon- mit their tickets and would you had ets tendered were never dis- .... had different results” he] erated [but He replied: missed?” policy” “a which he to different attributed Well, when I into the I agency, came applied him. The Chairman to challenged everything on I Hearing asked Mr. Sims: Committee do and to would there seemed have been adjudicate that had “Why you tickets that’s, this direct me and bias towards your you to wife issued why basically, my discrimination [I filed] giving your to daughter instead of them suit, receiving because I I was thought supervisor?” responded: He disparate they this treatment and how Well, I feel that I sent the didn’t when me, my to supervisors, related how basi- process, they through tickets cally, related to me I ... because was adjudicate fairly and going were them challenged they say would if I was ...— tickets, I on ..., “Well, felt that most of based [say] a minute I late. would for, what issued that the ones wait a minute. have We different dismiss, good I you using explanations clocks. The clock are I did himself, part plea agreement, collecting As 5. After Mr. Sims said: our Your Hon- or, agreed oppose we not to the bottom of my apologize I to the Court for emotion guideline range in this matter. But just displayed. guess time I that I I the last given position Defendant occu- probably funeral felt ... was at a like offense, pied given the nature of the Honor, my want to parents. for But Your request would that there be some element prosecution allowing me to— thank community least service at involved in apologize for their consideration. want to the sentence. We also believe that a fine friends, my my employer as well appropriate. would be We believe that the wife, Court, really feel and to the because I presentence financial data set forth in the something very waited to sad that I have report shows that the Defendant does have happen to me at late time in like this this ability pay a fine. I would note that my age, life and that to have —be assets, liquid totaling he has themselves Court, before, I’m this side of the when $1,700.00. note that And I would the ma- normally a different situation. And jority appear debts debts that he really put really sorry this I’m and I more of chil- has incurred with one or myself mercy of the Court. debts, college which have been dren for happened with what I believe that has deferred, presumably gradu- until child now, big, long me I’ve learned lesson ates. blemish, try recov- I can reasons, I know that this For those we would ask the matter, exemplary life. I would er a And more impose Court to a fine in fine, appreciate whatever consideration which least the minimum would be give Court me. $500.00. will the amount of the *11 they Q: for them and you deny you should have been Do that changed the adjudicated, differently person and if a ID code to reflect other examiners’ appeared had before me with that same names? explanation, I would have dismissed No, sir, deny any A: I don’t of it. those tickets from persons those Q: you the bottom line is'that admit So why I that’s did. you system that tried to by use the “Why you The Chairman also asked: did putting other examiners’ names on

pay pay for some tickets and not for them there; is correct? all?” Mr. Sims answered: tickets “[T]he A: That’s correct. good that were tickets ... something that violation, paid [a] clear I for it.”6 Mr. Sims acknowledged wrongdoing cross-examination, On Mr. Sims admit- during testimony, provided but also ted that when by he was interviewed explanation of his conduct did not FBI, “initially denied [he] personal gain, center on a desire for nor done what eventually guilty to.” pled [he] prompted by inability reflect actions Using Bar Exhibit Number which re- pay parking tickets. He detailed the dismissed, flected the 20 tickets Mr. Sims RIF him process that landed at the BTA Bar Counsel established that the tickets parking and his futile efforts to have tick- were issued to Mr. his wife and his adjudicated by ets he deemed unfair BTA daughters. When Sims maintained him, personnel. According futility that he “did dismiss some tickets but ... prompted misguided of these efforts code,” did it with posed [his] Counsel actions, exceedingly judgment, bad ‘Well, following question: you do ac- some, justice by adjudicating seek but not knowledge that the records that the FBI all, of his own tickets and a few issued to reviewed reflected that the codes of hear- family. other members of his yourself examiners than other Spiridon, their records?” Mr. “I Sims asserted: 2000), inquiry the kind of described acknowledged that, my I stood that in that must be made before a conclusion plea. I it I I acknowledged yes. and said reached as to whether conduct involves accepted everything however said it on the facts: I happened. accepted that.” The Chair- man of the Hearing Committee asked fol- one accepts Once conduct deemed lowup questions to which Mr. re- society may may criminal sponded, as follows: turpitude, not involve moral determi-

Q: I’m going to use the term “fixed” intensely specific nation becomes tickets, you these meaning caused Fur- particular facts and circumstances. tickets, them to be dismissed. All these thermore, cognizant inquiry must correct? whether purpose: to determine Yes, in question A: sir. the conviction of offense you say you response question can turn the Chairman's situation where did,” to how he about what "[felt] [he] over and this never clock back and start occurred, Sims stated: would have I mean I would have differently just .... done it I would have I feel real bad. I mean I felt from the through pro- bitten the bullet and went day sentencing process, in the whole it is properly just challenged it cess that I have never been on this side of the do, table, career, normally throughout my required as I what was whole life, just you get always whole felt to a should have done. that —

13 subject to disci- legislature attorney the of the who rises to such level that pline, 1217. id. at consequence would have intended as automatic of the attor- the disbarment I at Sims 365.

ney question. past legal our principles, Given these moral what declaring decisions constitutes Id. at 468. We have said that rise to facts, of and the burden turpitude on the attorney’s an turpitude, the level of moral prove Bar violations of Counsel “baseness, conduct must reflect vileness or by of clear and Rules Professional Conduct Tidwell, 953, In depravity,” re 831 A.2d explained convincing evidence (D.C.2003), Colson, supra, re 412 957 In I, case, on the in Mr. Sims’ I cannot record 1168; at it “a A.2d that must manifest its conclude that Bar Counsel sustained society deeply revulsion of toward conduct show- respect required burden with offending general moral sense of right involving conduct II, wrong,” 602 supra, and McBride A.2d of on the facts. Mr. Sims entered 632-33; I, at see 844 A.2d at also Sims guilty to of conflict one count misdemeanor addition, “In of the the actions attor of follows: interest as ney by personal must be or gain motivated 9, 1996, On or December within about dishonesty manifest intentional for the Columbia, of the defendant District purpose gain, rather than be SIMS, employ- an being NATHANIEL I, ‘misguided’ simply actions.” Sims su ee of the District of the Government II, pra, (citing A.2d 844 at 365 Tucker Columbia, participated and personally 512; III, supra, McBride su substantially government employee, 1273). 642 A.2d at pra, through ruling in a request decision To establish existence of conduct determination, matter in or other in a involving moral turpitude on had a inter- which he knew he financial presenting Counsel has burden of clear est; is, the defendant NATHANI- convincing evidence. See BPR Rule EL number dismissed ticket SIMS (“Bar 11.5 shall have the Counsel burden De- which had been issued on 202711902 proving disciplinary violations rules by cember an employee evidence.”). by convincing clear car Department of Public Works on the I, Sims we said: by leased the defendant NATHANIEL thereby releasing the defendant SIMS convincing relating Clear and evidence obligation SIMS from his NATHANIEL to conduct a criminal underlying convic- pay fine. the $50 may tion include an FBI or other law (In of Title United violation affidavit, Shillaire, enforcement [In States Code Sections 208 (D.C.1988)]; a state- 216(a)(1)). given to FBI or ment other law short, impossible say that signed by I find it agency enforcement II, offense attorney, supra, [this] 766 A.2d at Mr. Sims’ “conviction 513; legislature videotapes audio or made an rises such a level consequence intended as a agent FBI or other law enforcement would have Spiridon, in an disbarment....” showing [his] official act of automatic agree can I supra, supra, A.2d at 468. Nor wrongdoing, Tucker 1215; engaged FBI that the in Mr. Sims testimony by agent ], ],” ], depraved[ nor vile[ law enforcement official before the was “base[ other committee, id.; “a revul- type prompt it of the that would admissions sion society deeply Hearing toward conduct of- Both the Committee and the that “if fending general agree disbarment right [is] sense of *13 11-2503(a), I, by mandated [D.C.Code] and wrong,” supra, (quoting Sims at 365 suspended should be Tidwell, [Mr. Sims] for one 957; supra, 831 McBride year requirement with a prove that he 632-33). II, And, supra, 602 A.2d at al- practice fitness to resume the of law.” In though Mr. Sims had a financial in interest Hutchinson, light of our decisions in In re conduct, Abrahamson, my his as did Mr. in (D.C.1987) (en banc), 534 A.2d 919 In re by view Bar Counsel failed establish Shillaire, (D.C.1991), 597 A.2d 913 convincing clear and evidence that Mr. III, Spiridon, McBride and supra, one- Sims lied about the reasons he articulated year suspension appropriate is an sanction. in explaining his actions. Those actions A one-year suspension was imposed on III, clearly “misguided,” McBride in attorneys each of the these cases. 642 A.2d at and exceedingly reflected However, in II Hutchinson and McBride poor judgment, but in as the record Abra- III, we suspended attorneys for one hamson, supra, by did not substantiate year requirement. without a fitness Shil- convincing clear and evidence that he was laire II reciprocal discipline involved by personal gain, motivated neither does because, in requirement we added a fitness in the record Mr. Sims’ case substantiate one-year suspension, addition to the Michi convincing clear and evidence that he gan required apply Mr. Shillaire to by personal gain was “motivated or mani- Shillaire, In re readmission. dishonesty pur- intentional for the fested] (D.C.1991)(Shillaire II). imposed We pose of personal gain,” supra at Sims requirement Spiridon fitness in because II, in in contrast to the record Spiridon practiced had never law and 512. In problems. suffered from mental con Finally, responsibility “the for imposing attorneys trast in Shillaire and in sanctions rests with this court the first Spiridon, receiving not recip Mr. Sims is Temple, supra, instance.” 629 A.2d at law, discipline, practiced rocal has and suf And, generally while defer psychiatric fers from no mental or prob Board, accept we do not its recom- addition, lems. inas the case of Mr. if mended sanction it “would foster a ten- McBride, question I see “no reason to [Mr. dency dispositions toward inconsistent ability satisfy Sims’] [the] five factors” comparable conduct and would otherwise relating to fitness were announced XI, be unwarranted.” Bar R. D.C. Roundtree, view, § 9(g)(1). disbarring 1985). III, McBride 642 A.2d at 1275. would disposi- foster inconsistent have discussed the nature and We above comparable given tion for our de- circumstances of his misconduct. His McBride, cisions Abrahamson and statements of remorse before the United totality is unwarranted under the of the States District Court for the District of I in- surrounding circumstances his case. during sentencing hearing, Columbia terpret showing this record as that Mr. Hearing during before just Sims’ conduct aberrational as Four a recognition Committee reflect III; attorney that of the McBride the seriousness of misconduct. There just as the conduct of the is no indication in the record that he has Abrahamson to the level of engaged any prac rise misconduct his law aspects on the neither did tice or of his life. Prior to other entry paid the plea, that of Mr. Sims. of his govern- money he denied to the District JACOBS, Appellant Charles D. is

ment actions. And there pres- question reason on this record v. character, present qualifications or his ent STATES, Appellee. UNITED competence practice law. Mr. Sims Law graduate Georgetown Cen- No. 00-CF-1648. in educational ter holds doctorate of Appeals. of Columbia Court District University administration from the Massachusetts at Amherst. For sub- 26, 2002. Argued Nov. *14 years positions stantial he held number 10, 2004. Decided Nov. departments agencies in various Depart- government, including District Personnel,

ment of the Rental Accommo- office, and the Department

dations Pub- Works, disciplinary

lic with no record.

addition, community, he participates in civ-

ic, activities, religious including Scouts,

Boy the Hillcrest Cen- Children’s

ter, and his local He has church. years,

married for approximately thirty-six children,

has five two at the time whom elementary

of Sims were still school;

secondary and he raised four fos- children care

ter whose he assumed follow- sum, the death of their on mother. record I am convinced that rather legal

than “the protecting profession, the courts, Lenoir, public,” supra, “ ensuring

A.2d at the continued

and restored fitness [of Sims] Bettis, law,” supra,

practice the sanction of imposed

disbarment Mr. Sims consti- punishment despite

tutes the fact purpose conducting disciplinary

“[o]ur

proceedings imposing sanctions Steele, attorney....” punish supra, A.2d at reasons, respectfully

For the foregoing

dissent.