In re Moody

• Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 11, 2024
• Docket: 24-BG-0104
• 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. 24-BG-0104

IN RE JAMES A. MOODY, RESPONDENT.

An Administratively Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 294504)

On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility

(BDN No. 23-BD-022; DDN No. 2022-D222)

(Decided April 11, 2024)

Before: BECKWITH and MCLEESE, Associate Judges, and FISHER, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM: The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that

James A. Moody be disbarred from the practice of law for intentional

misappropriation and violation of D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(b), 1.15(a), (c), and (d),

8.1(b), and 8.4(c) and (d), and D.C. Bar R. XI, § 2(b)(3). The Board also

recommends that, if respondent seeks reinstatement, information concerning

whether he has made his client whole should be considered. This court has

previously concluded that disbarment is the appropriate sanction for intentional 2

misappropriation. 1 Disciplinary Counsel has requested that the court make

restitution a condition of reinstatement. Respondent has not filed any exceptions to

the Board’s Report and Recommendation or responded to Disciplinary Counsel’s

request that restitution be a condition of reinstatement. Nor has he filed the required

D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit.

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.”). Because no exceptions have been filed and disbarment is

the appropriate sanction for intentional misappropriation, we accept the Board’s

recommendation that respondent be disbarred. Although we decline to make

restitution a condition of reinstatement, we reiterate the Board’s statement that,

should respondent seek reinstatement, a demonstration that he has made his client

whole will be highly relevant evidence.

Accordingly, it is

1 See In re Anderson, 778 A.2d 330, 338 (D.C. 2001). 3

ORDERED that respondent James A. Moody is hereby disbarred from the

practice of law in this jurisdiction. Respondent’s attention is directed to the

requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 and their effect on eligibility for reinstatement.

See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16(c).

So ordered.