In re Bruce A. Pelkey

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed disciplinary proceedings against Bruce A. Pelkey arising from his business dealings and litigation involving Linda Cavalli and related entities. The court found clear and convincing evidence that Pelkey violated multiple District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct, including rules concerning theft, dishonesty, frivolous proceedings, false statements to a tribunal, harassment, and interference with the administration of justice. The court upheld disbarment and conditioned reinstatement on restitution and satisfaction of specified judgments.

Holdings

1. Bar Counsel proved by clear and convincing evidence that Pelkey committed theft within the meaning of Rule 8.4(b) by wrongfully obtaining or using property belonging in part to Cavalli with intent to deprive her of her property or benefit from it.
2. Pelkey violated Rule 8.4(c) by engaging in prolonged dishonest and deceitful conduct, including concealing Cavalli's intended ownership interest, denying their business relationship, making false sworn statements, and misleading tribunals and disciplinary authorities.
3. Pelkey violated Rules 8.4(d), 3.1, 3.2(a), 3.3(a)(1), and 4.4(a) by filing frivolous appeals and motions, submitting a false verified declaration, attempting to avoid a signed arbitration agreement, and using litigation tactics that harassed, delayed, and burdened Cavalli.
4. Disbarment was warranted, and reinstatement was properly conditioned on full restitution to the Clients' Security Fund with six percent interest and satisfaction of all outstanding judgments in favor of Cavalli or related business entities.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Bar Counsel proved by clear and convincing evidence that Pelkey violated District of Columbia Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(b) by committing theft that reflected adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness.
2. Whether Pelkey violated Rule 8.4(c) through dishonest, fraudulent, deceitful, or misleading conduct in his business dealings and sworn statements.
3. Whether Pelkey violated Rules 8.4(d), 3.1, 3.2(a), 3.3(a)(1), and 4.4(a) through false statements, frivolous proceedings, harassment, delay, and conduct interfering with the administration of justice.
4. Whether disbarment was the appropriate sanction for Pelkey's misconduct and whether reinstatement should be conditioned on restitution and satisfaction of specified judgments.

Disposition

other