# In Re Hutchinson

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · December 8, 1986 · 518 A.2d 995

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9758984

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re James D. HUTCHINSON, Respondent
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** December 8, 1986
- **Citations:** 518 A.2d 995
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Steadman
- **Judges:** Pryor, Terry, Steadman
- **Cited by:** 10 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/9758984

## Opinion text

STEADMAN, Associate Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I analyze the sanction question somewhat differently from the majority. I believe insufficient attention is given to the factor of potential consequences of the untruthful testimony. In In re Reback, 513 A.2d 226 (D.C.1986) (en banc), which the majority finds comparable to this case, we were careful to point out, in discussing the seriousness of the respondents’ untruthful conduct:
Indeed, no substantive harm presumably would have ensued even if the falsity of the signature on the new complaint had never come to light, since the facts *1004 stated therein were identical to those contained in the original complaint signed by the client. Of course, if respondents’ dishonesty had led to adverse consequences, even if temporary, or would have done so if undiscovered, that would put them at far greater risk of Severe discipline. Id. at 232 n. 5 (emphasis added).
Here, respondent lied to an official investigative body in order to shield himself and others from possible civil and criminal liability. His doing so, it is fair to assume, must have had at least temporary consequences in hindering the investigation and, if undiscovered, might have thwarted it altogether. I thus agree with the reasoning of the Board, quoted in the majority opinion, 1 underlying its recommendation for a one-year suspension, and I believe such a sanction not only could survive but would be consistent with our en banc holding in Reback .
What I am uncertain of is the degree to which the recommendation for a one-year suspension reflected the Board’s erroneous belief that respondent had also committed “statutory fraud.” Since I think that this court should be strongly inclined to “respect the Board’s sense of equity in these matters [of sanction] unless the exercise of judgment proves to be unreasonable,” In re Haupt, 422 A.2d 768, 771 (D.C.1980), I would remand to the Board for a new recommendation as to the appropriate sanction. '
. The Board also observed, in another part of the report: "Hutchinson's false statements were for one purpose only — to conceal unlawful activity engaged in by his friend, his friend's source, and himself.... However Hutchinson rationalized his conduct, the fact remains that its purpose was to impede an investigation into unlawful activity.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9758984. Public record. Not legal advice.