The opinion
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic
and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of
any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go
to press.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
No. 25-BG-0685
IN RE BRIAN V. LEE, RESPONDENT.
A Member of the Bar of the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
(Bar Registration No. 978834)
On Report and Recommendation of the Board on
Professional Responsibility Hearing Committee
Nine Approving Petition for Negotiated Discipline
(BDN: 24-ND-007; DDN: 2023-D069)
(Decided December 11, 2025)
Before MCLEESE and DEAHL, Associate Judges, and THOMPSON, Senior
Judge.
PER CURIAM: This decision is nonprecedential. Please refer to D.C. Bar
R. XI, § 12.1(d), governing the appropriate citation of this opinion.
In this disciplinary matter, the Hearing Committee recommends approval of
the parties’ petition for negotiated attorney discipline. Respondent Brian V. Lee
acknowledged that in connection with his representation of a client in a foreclosure
case, he (1) failed to serve the client with the skill and care commensurate with that
generally afforded to clients by other lawyers in similar matters, (2) failed to keep
2
the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter, (3) failed to explain the
matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed
decisions regarding the representation, (4) knowingly made a false statement of fact
to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC), and (5) engaged in conduct that
seriously interfered with the administration of justice. As a result, respondent admits
that he violated D.C. R. Pro. Conduct 1.1(b), 1.4(a), 1.4(b), 8.1(a), and 8.4(d). The
proposed discipline consists of a 90-day suspension, with 60 days stayed in favor of
one year of unsupervised probation with conditions.
Having reviewed the Committee’s recommendation in accordance with our
procedures in these cases, see D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(d), we agree that this case is
appropriate for negotiated discipline and “the agreed-upon sanction is justified,” In
re Mensah, 262 A.3d 1100, 1104 (D.C. 2021) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks
omitted), in light of reasonably analogous precedents. See In re Evans, 187 A.3d
554 (D.C. 2018) (per curiam); In re Alexander, 466 A.2d 447 (D.C. 1983); see also
In re Teitelbaum, 303 A.3d 52, 57 (D.C. 2023) (providing that a negotiated discipline
petition “may generally omit to charge a violation if, after reasonable factual
investigation, there is a substantial risk that ODC would not be able to establish the
violation by clear and convincing evidence”). Accordingly, it is
3
ORDERED that the Board’s consent motion for leave is granted, and the
lodged confidential appendix to the Hearing Committee’s report and
recommendation is filed under seal. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that respondent Brian V. Lee is hereby suspended
from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for 90 days, with 60 days stayed
in favor of one year of unsupervised probation with the following conditions:
(i) Respondent shall not be the subject of a disciplinary complaint that
results in a violation of a disciplinary rule in any jurisdiction in which
he is licensed;
(ii) Respondent will notify all his clients of the suspension and provide
written proof to ODC of having done so within 30 days of the issuance
of this opinion;
(iii) After he resumes the practice of law, Respondent will notify all his
clients of his probation and provide written proof of having done so to
ODC within 30 days of the last day of his suspension and/or upon
undertaking a new representation;
(iv) Respondent will take two CLE courses approved by ODC (on Ethics
and Lawyer Trust Accounts and the Mandatory Course on the D.C.
Rules of Professional Conduct and D.C. Practice) and will provide
proof of attendance at each CLE course within 10 days of completion,
4
waiving confidentiality regarding any consultations associated with the
training advice and materials;
(v) Respondent will notify ODC promptly of any disciplinary matters
against himself and their dispositions;
(vi) Within 30 days of the issuance of this opinion, Respondent will notify
ODC in writing of all jurisdictions in which he has been licensed to
practice and all tribunals before which he has appeared as legal counsel;
and
(vii) Respondent will not need to show fitness upon any application for
reinstatement, provided that he has successfully completed probation
and the agreed-upon conditions.1
Additionally, we direct respondent’s attention to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g),
which requires the filing of an affidavit with this court for purposes of reinstatement
in accordance with D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16, and Bd. Pro. Resp. R. 9.9.
So ordered.
1
We understand the parties to contemplate that if respondent does not
comply with the conditions of his probation, then ODC may seek to revoke his
probation, and, if he is found to have violated his probation, then this court should
impose the stayed 60-day suspension with a fitness requirement.