(DOWNLOAD) "In re Reynolds" by District of Columbia Court of Appeals. # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: In re Reynolds
- Author : District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
- Release Date : January 14, 2000
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 51 KB
Description
On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility Submitted November 21, 2000 The Board on Professional Responsibility, on the basis of findings by a Hearing Committee which the Board accepted, recommends that respondent be suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for six months and be required to show fitness for reinstatement. The recommendation of discipline stems from conduct that resulted in respondent's misdemeanor convictions in the Commonwealth of Virginia for two counts of driving while intoxicated, one count of ""hit and run,"" and one count of eluding a police officer. The Board concluded that respondent had violated Rule 8.4 (b) of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct, which makes it professional misconduct for a lawyer to ""[c]ommit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects."" The Board further opined, although stating that ""nothing turns on its resolution,"" that respondent had violated Rule 8.4 (d), which prohibits a lawyer from ""[e]ngag[ing] in conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice."" The Board stated that it ""would recommend the same sanction in any event, based solely on the Rule 8.4 (b) violation,"" noting that the issue of whether respondent had also violated Rule 8.4 (d) was ""one of first impression"" in this jurisdiction. Neither respondent nor Bar Counsel has filed exceptions to the Board's report and recommendation. In these circumstances, ""[t]he deferential standard mandated by [D.C. Bar R. XI , § 9 (g)] becomes even more deferential."" In re Goldsborough, 654 A.2d 1285, 1288 (D.C. 1995). We agree with the Board that consideration of whether respondent's conduct violated Rule 8.4 (d) is unnecessary to the imposition of discipline, because, for the reasons the Board stated, his actions were misconduct within the meaning of Rule 8.4 (b) and fully justify the sanction recommended by the Board.