In re Kersey

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals adopts the Board on Professional Responsibility's recommendation to impose reciprocal disbarment on George E. Kersey based on his disbarment by the Supreme Court of New Hampshire. The court rejects Kersey's challenges to the underlying disciplinary findings, concluding that he failed to establish an exception to reciprocal discipline or an obvious miscarriage of justice.

Holdings

1. The District of Columbia must impose reciprocal discipline unless the attorney demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence one of the exceptions enumerated in D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 11(c).
2. An attorney who does not oppose reciprocal discipline before the Board or respond to the court's show-cause order waives the right to contest imposition of reciprocal discipline, and the court reviews the matter only for an obvious miscarriage of justice.
3. Kersey failed to demonstrate an obvious miscarriage of justice or any other basis for departing from reciprocal discipline, even though he challenged the New Hampshire court's jurisdiction and the characterization of his pro se conduct.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the District of Columbia should impose reciprocal discipline based on Kersey's New Hampshire disbarment.
2. Whether Kersey established an exception under D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 11(c), or an obvious miscarriage of justice sufficient to avoid reciprocal disbarment despite his failure to contest the discipline before the Board.
3. Whether Kersey's alleged pro se representation in a fee-award dispute and challenges to the New Hampshire court's jurisdiction required a different result.

Disposition

other