# In Re Steele

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · August 19, 1993 · 630 A.2d 196

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9699274

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re Sonya D. STEELE, Respondent
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** August 19, 1993
- **Citations:** 630 A.2d 196; 1993 WL 316254
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Farrell
- **Judges:** Farrell, King, Belson
- **Cited by:** 51 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9699274

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that this court "would welcome suggestions by the Board and Bar Counsel for expedition of [the reinstatement] process”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9699274. Public record. Not legal advice.