In re Richardson

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re Richardson

874 A.2d 361, 2005 D.C. App. LEXIS 210, 2005 WL 1088946

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 5, 2005

DocketNo. 04-BG-917

StatusPublished

This text of 874 A.2d 361 (In re Richardson) 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 Richardson, 874 A.2d 361, 2005 D.C. App. LEXIS 210, 2005 WL 1088946 (D.C. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In 1997, this court suspended T. Carlton Richardson (“Richardson”) from practicing in the District of Columbia for three years in a reciprocal proceeding arising out of attorney misconduct in Florida. On July 25, 2001, Richardson petitioned this court for reinstatement. A three-day hearing was held, after which the Hearing Committee issued a lengthy report to the Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”) recommending that Richardson be denied reinstatement. The Board, in accordance with the Hearing Committee, issued its own report recommending that Richardson’s petition for reinstatement be denied. The Board based its determination on the fact that “the overall case for reinstatement ha[d] not been made by clear and convincing evidence.” We agree with the Board and therefore deny Richardson’s petition for reinstatement.

Because neither Bar Counsel nor Richardson has filed exceptions to the Board’s report and recommendation, our review is “especially deferential.” In re Delaney, 697 A.2d 1212, 1214 (D.C.1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).¹ “To gain reinstatement, petitioner must establish by clear and convincing evidence that (1) he has the ‘moral qualifications, competency, and learning in law required for readmission,’ and (2) his resumption of the practice of law ‘will not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the Bar, or the administration of justice, or subversive to the public interest.’ ” In re Reynolds, 867 A.2d 977, 978 (D.C.2005) (quoting D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16(d)).

This court set forth five criteria governing reinstatement in In re Roundtree, 503 A.2d 1215, 1217 (D.C.1985). Those factors are:

(1) the nature and circumstances of the misconduct for which the attorney was disciplined; (2) whether the attorney recognizes the seriousness of the misconduct; (3) the attorney’s conduct since discipline was imposed, including the steps taken to remedy past wrongs and prevent future ones; (4) the attorney’s present character; and (5) the attorney’s present qualifications and competence to practice law.

Id. In its report and recommendation, the Board set forth its determination of each [363]*363Roundtree factor, ultimately concluding that Richardson had failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that he was fit to resume the practice of law. Given our deferential standard of review, the fact that there were no exceptions filed to the Board’s report and recommendation, and the record herein, we accept the Board’s recommendation, and deny Richardson’s petition for reinstatement.

So ordered.

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

PER CURIAM.

In 1997, this court suspended T. Carlton Richardson (“Richardson”) from practicing in the District of Columbia for three years in a reciprocal proceeding arising out of attorney misconduct in Florida. On July 25, 2001, Richardson petitioned this court for reinstatement. A three-day hearing was held, after which the Hearing Committee issued a lengthy report to the Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”) recommending that Richardson be denied reinstatement. The Board, in accordance with the Hearing Committee, issued its own report recommending that Richardson’s petition for reinstatement be denied. The Board based its determination on the fact that “the overall case for reinstatement ha[d] not been made by clear and convincing evidence.” We agree with the Board and therefore deny Richardson’s petition for reinstatement.

Because neither Bar Counsel nor Richardson has filed exceptions to the Board’s report and recommendation, our review is “especially deferential.” In re Delaney, 697 A.2d 1212, 1214 (D.C.1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).¹ “To gain reinstatement, petitioner must establish by clear and convincing evidence that (1) he has the ‘moral qualifications, competency, and learning in law required for readmission,’ and (2) his resumption of the practice of law ‘will not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the Bar, or the administration of justice, or subversive to the public interest.’ ” In re Reynolds, 867 A.2d 977, 978 (D.C.2005) (quoting D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16(d)).

This court set forth five criteria governing reinstatement in In re Roundtree, 503 A.2d 1215, 1217 (D.C.1985). Those factors are:

(1) the nature and circumstances of the misconduct for which the attorney was disciplined; (2) whether the attorney recognizes the seriousness of the misconduct; (3) the attorney’s conduct since discipline was imposed, including the steps taken to remedy past wrongs and prevent future ones; (4) the attorney’s present character; and (5) the attorney’s present qualifications and competence to practice law.

Id. In its report and recommendation, the Board set forth its determination of each [363]*363Roundtree factor, ultimately concluding that Richardson had failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that he was fit to resume the practice of law. Given our deferential standard of review, the fact that there were no exceptions filed to the Board’s report and recommendation, and the record herein, we accept the Board’s recommendation, and deny Richardson’s petition for reinstatement.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

874 A.2d 361, 2005 D.C. App. LEXIS 210, 2005 WL 1088946, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-richardson-dc-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack