Friday, November 22, 2019
A high profile case involving proposed bar discipline for a former judge's $67 million suit over a pair of pants finally reaches its ultimate destination before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals on January 9, 2020
No. 18-BG-0586 IN RE: ROY L. PEARSON, JR., BOARD DOCKET NO. 15- BD-031, BAR REGISTRATION NO. 955948
Joseph Charles Perry, Esquire
Roy L. Pearson, Jr., Pro Se
Whatever the merits or ultimate resolution, this ugly fact remains undeniable
Bar Docket No. 2007-D149
To the uninitiated, this means that the bar began its investigation in early to mid 2007.
Two years of the delay is legitimate as the matter was still in litigation as noted by a hearing committee
This disciplinary proceeding arises out of litigation that Respondent conducted on his own behalf in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia between June 2005 and August 2007 and in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals between August 2007 and March 2009.
Disciplinary Counsel generally defers formal proceedings until related civil litigation is concluded.
The next 10 years is less justifiable, particularly for a case premised almost exclusively on findings in that litigation.
The Board on Professional Responsibility
Respondent complains that the seven-year delay between Disciplinary Counsel beginning its investigation and the date of the filing of the Specification of Charges deprived him of due process, and that the further delay in the Hearing Committee’s issuance of its Report and Recommendation warrants a dismissal of the charges.
We agree with the Hearing Committee that Respondent failed to establish that he was prejudiced by delay preceding the Specification of Charges. HC Rpt. at 39- 40. Accordingly, we deny Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss.
The board has recommended a 90-day suspension. (Mike Frisch)