Summary
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals imposed reciprocal disbarment on Charles M. James III after Maryland had disbarred him for professional-conduct violations, including intentional misappropriation. The court treated the proceeding as effectively unopposed because James failed to participate before the Board and failed to file a brief supporting his exceptions.
Holdings
- The court imposed reciprocal disbarment because James's Maryland disbarment was effectively unopposed in the District of Columbia proceedings and the record showed no basis for finding that identical discipline would result in an obvious miscarriage of justice.
- James waived any point that he failed to present to the Board and could not contest reciprocal discipline after failing to oppose the proposed discipline before the Board or respond properly to the court's show-cause and briefing orders.
Questions Presented
- Whether the District of Columbia should impose reciprocal disbarment after Maryland disbarred James for professional-conduct violations including intentional misappropriation.
- Whether James could contest the reciprocal-discipline recommendation in the Court of Appeals after failing to present the relevant point to the Board and failing to respond adequately to the court's briefing orders.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (6)
- In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190 (D.C. 1990) (en banc)(followed)
- In re Childress, 811 A.2d 805, 807 (D.C. 2002)(followed)
- In re Goldsborough, 654 A.2d 1285, 1288 (D.C. 1995)(followed)
- In re Abrams, 689 A.2d 6, 10 (D.C.) (en banc), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1121, 117 S. Ct. 2515, 138 L. Ed. 2d 1017 (1997)(followed)
- In re Holdmann, 834 A.2d 887, 889-90 (D.C. 2003)(followed)
- In re Harper, 785 A.2d 311, 316 (D.C. 2001)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…