stating that this court "would welcome suggestions by the Board and Bar Counsel for expedition of [the reinstatement] process”
How later courts described this case
- stating that this court "would welcome suggestions by the Board and Bar Counsel for expedition of [the reinstatement] process”
- imposing a fitness requirement in large part based on respondent's acknowledgment of unidentified personal problems that adversely affected her emotional stability
- accepting the Board’s recommendation that attorney pay restitution in the amount of $300 when she had failed to satisfy a judgment entered against her
- imposing fitness requirement where attorney’s psychological problems "caused her” to abandon a client’s case and it remained uncertain whether those problems had been resolved
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by In Re Artis, 2005 D.C. App. LEXIS 473 (2005)
Steele is distinguishable.
The opinion
FARRELL, Associate Judge,
concurring:
I join entirely Judge Belson’s opinion for the court, and write only to suggest that this court should consider amending D.C.Bar Rule XI, § 16 to give the Board flexibility it currently appears to lack in treating petitions for reinstatement. I refer to the present obligatory procedure whereby a Hearing Committee must first conduct a hearing on every petition not dismissed on initial screening by the Board, to be followed by Board review (and a second level of “findings and recommendation”) and ultimate consideration by this court. Section 16(d). Despite repeated adjurations in the rule to "prompt[ness]” in the conduct of this process, we were told at argument, as Judge Belson points out, ante at n. 5, that the process currently takes about eighteen months. The result is that someone like respondent, suspended for sixty days with (as we impose) a requirement of showing rehabilitation, will suffer a de facto suspension of more than a year and a half. It takes little insight to understand that that reality may induce great reluctance by the Board to add the condition of showing fitness to suspensions of relatively short duration.
I believe the Board should have discretion to adjudge some petitions favorably (with a corresponding recommendation to the court) without need for referral to a Hearing Committee, at least upon concurrence of Bar Counsel. More problematical might be a change permitting the Board to approve some petitions and allow resumption of practice (perhaps following short suspensions) without awaiting this court’s order. Also, in a case such as this where a particular primary concern underlies imposition of the requirement to show fitness (i.e., a confession of past “emotional[] [in]stab[ility]”), the rule should make clear that the Board, in the recommended suspension order, may specify and simplify the showing of fitness the respondent will be required to make. I, and I am sure my colleagues, would welcome suggestions by the Board and Bar Counsel for expedition of this process, at least in some cases.