In re Fykes, Jr.

• Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 31, 2025
• Docket: 25-BG-0262
• Status: Published

Opinion

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 25-BG-0262

IN RE LEROY M. FYKES, JR., RESPONDENT.

A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 363819)

On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility Ad Hoc Hearing Committee Approving Third Amended Petition for Negotiated Discipline (BDN: 22-ND-006; DDN: 2017-D315)

(Decided July 31, 2025)

Before EASTERLY and MCLEESE, Associate Judges, and GLICKMAN, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM: This decision is nonprecedential. Please refer to D.C. Bar R. XI,

§ 12.1(d), governing the appropriate citation of this opinion.

In this disciplinary matter, the Hearing Committee recommends approval of

the parties’ third amended petition for negotiated attorney discipline. Respondent

Leroy M. Fykes, Jr., voluntarily acknowledged that, in connection with a

conservatorship case, he (1) failed to provide competent representation to the client;

(2) failed to represent the client with zeal and diligence and promptness within the 2

bounds of the law; (3) failed to protect client interests in terminating representation;

and (4) engaged in conduct that seriously interfered with the administration of

justice. As a result, respondent admits that he violated D.C. R. Pro.

Conduct 1.1(a)-(b), 1.3(a), (c), 1.16(d), and 8.4(d). The proposed discipline consists

of a 60-day suspension, stayed in favor of one year of probation with conditions, and

a fitness requirement if his probation is revoked.

This court rejected the parties’ first amended petition because the stipulated

facts raised concerns as to whether respondent also committed other serious

violations, which, at a minimum, required the Hearing Committee to explain why it

believed Disciplinary Counsel was not offering an unduly lenient sanction. See In

re Fykes, No. 23-BG-0626, Order (D.C. Sept. 18, 2023). Disciplinary Counsel

subsequently filed second and third amended petitions that included additional

stipulated facts addressing the court’s concerns, and the Hearing Committee in turn

requested additional explanation from Disciplinary Counsel before again

recommending that this court impose the same negotiated discipline.

Having reviewed the Committee’s recommendation in accordance with our

procedures in these cases, see D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(d), we agree that this case is

appropriate for negotiated discipline and “the agreed-upon sanction is justified,” In

re Mensah, 262 A.3d 1100, 1104 (D.C. 2021) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks

omitted). See In re Teitelbaum, 303 A.3d 52, 57-58 (D.C. 2023) (providing that a 3

negotiated discipline petition “may generally omit to charge a violation if, after

reasonable factual investigation, there is a substantial risk that [the Office of

Disciplinary Counsel] would not be able to establish the violation by clear and

convincing evidence”). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that respondent Leroy M. Fykes, Jr., is hereby suspended from

the practice of law in the District of Columbia for 60 days, stayed in favor of one

year of probation with the following conditions:

(a) Within the first 30 days of the probation period, respondent must

consult with the D.C. Practice Management Advisory Service (PMAS)

about his case management system and provide Disciplinary Counsel

with written confirmation of such consultation with PMAS. The

consultation shall include a discussion of how to ensure all filing

deadlines and other obligations are timely met and the appropriate

workload respondent should maintain in the event health issues

resurface;

(b) Within the first 90 days of the probation period, respondent shall

provide written confirmation that he has complied with the

recommendations made by PMAS; 4

(c) Within the first six months of the probation period, respondent shall

attend six hours of CLE courses in ethics, approved by Disciplinary

Counsel, and provide written confirmation of his attendance;

(d) During the entire one-year probation period, respondent shall not be

found to have engaged in any misconduct in this or any jurisdiction;

and

(e) If Disciplinary Counsel has probable cause to believe that respondent

has violated any of the terms of his probation, it may seek to revoke his

probation pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 3 and Bd. Pro. Resp. R. 18.3,

and request that he be required to serve the suspension previously

stayed herein, consecutively to any other discipline or suspension that

may be imposed, and that his reinstatement to the practice of law will

be conditioned upon a showing of fitness in accordance with D.C. Bar

R. XI, § 16 and Bd. Pro. Resp. R. 9.

Additionally, if respondent’s probation is revoked, and he is required to serve

the stayed suspension, respondent is reminded that he must file with the Court an

affidavit pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), for, inter alia, purposes of

reinstatement in accordance with D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16, and Bd. Pro. Resp. R. 9.

So ordered.