Summary
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals imposed reciprocal disbarment on T. Clarence Harper following his disbarment by the Maryland Court of Appeals for unauthorized practice of law and related misconduct. The court held that Harper’s failure to oppose reciprocal discipline before the Board on Professional Responsibility limited review to whether identical discipline would cause an obvious miscarriage of justice. The court found no such miscarriage and adopted the Board’s recommendation.
Holdings
- When neither Bar Counsel nor the attorney opposes identical reciprocal discipline before the Board, the Board's and the court's review is limited to determining whether imposing identical discipline would result in an obvious miscarriage of justice.
- Harper's claimed confusion about the court's order and the permissive wording of the Board rule did not excuse his failure to comply with the court's explicit ten-day show-cause deadline or his thirteen-month failure to inquire about participation.
- Imposing reciprocal disbarment in the District of Columbia would not result in an obvious miscarriage of justice.
- The disbarment would begin when Harper filed an affidavit satisfying all requirements of D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 14(g); until then, he remained suspended.
Questions Presented
- What standard governs review of reciprocal discipline when the attorney fails to oppose the proposed discipline before the Board on Professional Responsibility?
- Whether Harper's failure to respond to the court's show-cause order and Bar Counsel's recommendation should be excused because of alleged confusion about the reciprocal-discipline procedure.
- Whether imposing reciprocal disbarment in the District of Columbia would result in an obvious miscarriage of justice, particularly because the underlying misconduct included unauthorized practice in Maryland by an attorney licensed in the District of Columbia.
- Whether Harper complied with the affidavit requirements governing the effective date of disbarment.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (8)
- In re Spann, 711 A.2d 1262, 1265 (D.C. 1998)(followed)
- In re Gardner, 650 A.2d 693, 695 (D.C. 1994)(followed)
- In re Sheridan, 680 A.2d 439, 440 (D.C. 1996)(followed)
- In re Goldsborough, 654 A.2d 1285, 1287 (D.C. 1995)(followed)
- In re Berger, 737 A.2d 1033, 1044-45 (D.C. 1999)(followed)
- In re Reid, 540 A.2d 754, 758 (D.C. 1988)(followed)
- In re Spiegelman, 694 A.2d 59, 60 n.1, 62 (D.C. 1997)(distinguished)
- Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 90 (1977)(applied by analogy)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…