In re Dan Haendel

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re Dan Haendel

199 A.3d 625

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 3, 2019

Docket18-BG-522

StatusPublished

This text of 199 A.3d 625 (In re Dan Haendel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Dan Haendel, 199 A.3d 625 (D.C. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

In this case, the Board on Professional Responsibility has recommended that respondent Dan Haendel be disbarred from the practice of law after he entered an Alford 1 plea in the state of Virginia to committing one count of Taking Indecent Liberties with a Child, 2 and one count of Use of Communications Systems to Facilitate Certain Offenses Involving Children. 3 Neither respondent nor Disciplinary Counsel filed any exceptions to the Board's report.

Under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9 (h)(2), "if no exceptions are filed to the Board's report, the [c]ourt will enter an order imposing the discipline recommended by the Board upon the expiration of the time permitted for filing exceptions." See also In re Viehe , 762 A.2d 542 , 543 (D.C. 2000) ("When ... there are no exceptions to the Board's report and recommendation, our deferential standard of review becomes even more deferential."). We previously held that a violation of the 1981 version of Va. Code. § 18.2-370 constituted a crime of moral turpitude per se . 4 We have reviewed the changes reflected in the current version of the statute, and these changes do not alter our decision that violations of this statute constitute crimes of moral turpitude. Therefore, having found respondent committed at least one crime of moral turpitude per se , we impose the required sanction: we disbar him from the practice of law. See In re Colson , 412 A.2d 1160 , 1165 (D.C. 1979) (en banc); D.C. Code § 11-2503 (2013 Repl.).

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Dan Haendel is hereby disbarred from the practice of law. For purposes of reinstatement the period of respondent's disbarment will not begin to run until such time as he files a D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit.

So ordered.

1

North Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970).

2

Va. Code § 18.2-370.

3

Va. Code § 18.2-374.3.

4

In re Sharp , 674 A.2d 899 , 903-904 (D.C. 1996).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:

In this case, the Board on Professional Responsibility has recommended that respondent Dan Haendel be disbarred from the practice of law after he entered an Alford 1 plea in the state of Virginia to committing one count of Taking Indecent Liberties with a Child, 2 and one count of Use of Communications Systems to Facilitate Certain Offenses Involving Children. 3 Neither respondent nor Disciplinary Counsel filed any exceptions to the Board's report.

Under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9 (h)(2), "if no exceptions are filed to the Board's report, the [c]ourt will enter an order imposing the discipline recommended by the Board upon the expiration of the time permitted for filing exceptions." See also In re Viehe , 762 A.2d 542 , 543 (D.C. 2000) ("When ... there are no exceptions to the Board's report and recommendation, our deferential standard of review becomes even more deferential."). We previously held that a violation of the 1981 version of Va. Code. § 18.2-370 constituted a crime of moral turpitude per se . 4 We have reviewed the changes reflected in the current version of the statute, and these changes do not alter our decision that violations of this statute constitute crimes of moral turpitude. Therefore, having found respondent committed at least one crime of moral turpitude per se , we impose the required sanction: we disbar him from the practice of law. See In re Colson , 412 A.2d 1160 , 1165 (D.C. 1979) (en banc); D.C. Code § 11-2503 (2013 Repl.).

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Dan Haendel is hereby disbarred from the practice of law. For purposes of reinstatement the period of respondent's disbarment will not begin to run until such time as he files a D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit.

So ordered.

1

North Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970).

2

Va. Code § 18.2-370.

3

Va. Code § 18.2-374.3.

4

In re Sharp , 674 A.2d 899 , 903-904 (D.C. 1996).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.3d 625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-dan-haendel-dc-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack