In re M. Adriana Koeck, a/k/a Adriana Sanford

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals imposed a sixty-day suspension with a fitness requirement on M. Adriana Koeck for violating D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6(a) by disclosing confidential information. The court adopted the Board on Professional Responsibility’s uncontested findings and recommendation, noting that the respondent did not participate in the disciplinary proceedings or file exceptions. The suspension would begin when the respondent filed an affidavit complying with D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 14(g).

Holdings

1. When no exceptions are filed to the Board's report and recommendation, the court will enter an order imposing the discipline recommended by the Board upon expiration of the period for filing exceptions, absent a reason to depart from the Board's determination.
2. The court accepted the uncontested finding that Koeck violated Rule 1.6(a) by disclosing confidential information of a prior client to a newspaper reporter and providing no defense for the disclosure.
3. A sixty-day suspension with reinstatement conditioned on a showing of fitness was reasonable under the circumstances.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should accept the Board's uncontested determination that Koeck violated D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6(a).
2. Whether a sixty-day suspension with a fitness requirement was an appropriate sanction.
3. Whether the suspension period should be conditioned on filing an affidavit satisfying D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 14(g).

Disposition

other