Sunday, February 18, 2018

D.C. Bar Discipline Hearing Schedule

I am pleased to note that the web page of the District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility has been updated to give public notice of upcoming scheduled bar disciplinary hearings.

In re Edward Gonzalez, DN. 2016-D141
February 8 & 9, 2018, 9:30 a.m.
Courtroom II

 In re Billy Ponds, DNos. 2011-D377, et al.
February 20 & 21, 2018, 9:30 a.m.
Courtroom II

In re Glenn H. Stephens, III, DNos. 2015-D330, et al.
March 12-16, 2018, 10:00 a.m.
Courtroom II

In re Karen P. Cleaver-Bascombe, DN. 2017-D115
March 19, 20, 23, 2018, 9:30 a.m.

In re Stephen M. Reid, DN. 2014-D429
March 20-23, 2018, 9:30 a.m.

In re Warner H. Anthony, DN. 2017-D156
March 27, 2018, 10:00 a.m.
Courtroom II

In re Latif Doman, DNos. 2010-D050 & 2012-D390
April 5 & 6, 2018, 9:30 a.m.
Courtroom II

In re Jean Robinson, DN. 2015-D192
April 12-13 & 19-20, 2018, 9:30 a.m.
Courtroom II

In re Larry Klayman, DN. 2011-D028
May 30 - June 15, 2018, 10:00 a.m. 
Courtroom II
A major transparency improvement would be links to the charges and answers.
Wishful thinking. (Mike Frisch)

Bar Discipline & Process | Permalink


Judging from the docket #'s, one of these is a 2010 complaint (Doman) and two others are 2011 complaints (Ponds and Klayman). Does it really take that long to get to a disciplinary committee hearing?

Posted by: Richard Swenson | Feb 18, 2018 5:30:25 PM

Excellent observation, Richard. There are a number of explanations for old cases to legitimately take a long time to prosecute such as awaiting the outcome of related litigation. However, good old fashioned neglect (from the office that prosecutes neglect) has been endemic to ODC for many years due to feckless, uncaring leadership. Fortunately DC now has a real Disciplinary Counsel so the situation should improve going forward.

Posted by: Mike Frisch | Feb 19, 2018 4:10:10 AM

Professor Frisch: why would Bar Counsel need to wait for underlying litigation to end? If the lawyer violated the Bar Rules, shouldn’t the lawyer be prosecuted fast to take them out of the system? Also, witnesses die or move and people forget things. Therefore, the bad lawyer would have a due process argument even if there is no statute of limitations for Bar complaints.

Posted by: Kevin Kershaw | Feb 19, 2018 8:12:52 AM

Thanks for the question, Kevin. The concern is that the bar investigation might unduly influence the course of the civil proceeding. There is also concern that the bar will become a tool of discovery. Maryland actually dealt with this very issue last week
"We take the opportunity to provide guidance concerning the circumstance of a lawyer filing with Bar Counsel a complaint against another lawyer regarding his or her conduct in ongoing litigation in which the complaining lawyer is opposing counsel. Under such circumstances, we believe that it would be advisable for Bar Counsel to await the conclusion of the underlying litigation before determining whether an attorney discipline proceeding is warranted. Following this procedure would avoid any perception that Bar Counsel and the attorney disciplinary process are being used to further the complaining attorney’s interest in ongoing litigation."

Posted by: Mike Frisch | Feb 19, 2018 11:33:54 AM

Post a comment