 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Kitchings8/30/2001
On Exception of Respondent to Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility
Argued September 7, 2000
At the crux of this case lies a dispute between the Board on Professional Responsibility and Bar Counsel over the scope of the latter's authority to resolve cases based on a set of stipulated facts.
Bar Counsel charged John H. Kitchings with fifteen counts of various violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including neglect (Rule 1.3), failure to keep his clients informed (Rule 1.4), and failure to protect a client's interest after representation ended (Rule 1.16). Kitchings ultimately disputed none of these charges. Instead, he signed two stipulations: the first admitted the substance of three counts, and the second admitted the remaining twelve.
Kitchings also signed a memorandum of understanding indicating that the "appropriate" sanction for the three violations of the first stipulation, "aggravat " by the twelve counts of the second stipulation, was a six-month suspension, with reinstatement conditioned upon a showing of fitness. The memorandum indicated that it did not bind the hearing committee, the Board, or this court, and that Bar Counsel retained the authority to prosecute any counts not considered by this court as a basis for discipline. The memorandum stated that Kitchings signed it "to avoid the burden and expense of defending against further charges that would arise from conduct as set forth in the Second Stipulations."
In its Report, the Board rejected the second set of stipulations and the memorandum of understanding on three separate grounds. First, the Board found them to be a "plea bargain" or "negotiated disposition" beyond the authority of Bar Counsel. Second, Bar Counsel had no power, according to the Board, to urge the hearing committee to dismiss the charges of the second stipulation when contact members appointed by the Board had not given him permission to do so. Third, the Board found that Kitchings had signed the memorandum agreeing to a six-month suspension and the second stipulation under duress because of threats that Bar Counsel purportedly made to him. Instead, the Board recommended a thirty-day suspension, based solely on the violations admitted in the first stipulation, and directed Bar Counsel to continue to prosecute the other twelve charged violations.
We disagree with the Board's analysis. Although Bar Counsel in this case did not proceed in the usual manner, there was no unauthorized dismissal or plea bargain. Rather, the twelve counts of the second stipulation formed the basis for an enhanced sanction - a six-month suspension with a fitness requirement - in the nature of aggravating factors. We see nothing more than harmless error in the failure of Bar Counsel to obtain preapproval from contact members. Because nothing was dismissed, and the memorandum expressly provided that the Board was not bound by its terms, Bar Counsel did nothing more than try to anticipate - in this case incorrectly - the decision of the contact members. We also conclude that the Board erred in not deferring to the findings of the hearing committee with respect to duress. The presence of duress is a matter of fact, see Sind v. Pollin, 356 A.2d 653, 656 (D.C. 1976), and the Board must accept factual findings supported by substantial evidence, such as these. See In re Micheel, 610 A.2d 231, 234 (D.C. 1992). We thus remand this matter to the Board for a recommendation of a sanction consistent with all fifteen violations. See In re Drury, 683 A.2d 465, 468 (D.C. 1996) (holding that this court defers to the Board's recommended disposition "unless the sanction is unwarranted or inconsistent with
Page 1 2 3 4 5 District of Columbia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|