In re Ross

• Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
• Decided: November 13, 2025
• Docket: 25-BG-0605
• 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-0605

IN RE BRYAN S. ROSS, RESPONDENT.

A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 263863)

On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility Ad Hoc Hearing Committee Approving Petition for Negotiated Discipline (BDN: 24-ND-005; DDNs: 2023-D085, 2023-D162)

(Decided November 13, 2025)

Before MCLEESE and DEAHL, Associate Judges, and THOMPSON, 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PER CURIAM: This decision is nonprecedential.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’ petition for negotiated attorney discipline. Respondent Bryan S. Ross

has acknowledged that, in connection with bankruptcy cases in the District of

Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia, he engaged in conduct that (1) involved

dishonesty, deceit, and/or misrepresentation, and (2) seriously interfered with the 2

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

Pro. Conduct 8.4(c) & (d) and/or their counterparts in Maryland and/or Virginia.

The proposed discipline consists of a one-year suspension.

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), in light of reasonably analogous precedents. See, e.g., In re Tun, 195 A.3d

65 (D.C. 2018); In re Hutchison, 534 A.2d 919 (D.C. 1987) (en banc); In re

Thompson, 538 A.2d 247 (D.C. 1987) (per curiam); see also In re Teitelbaum, 303

A.3d 52, 56 (D.C. 2023) (providing that a 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 Bryan S. Ross is hereby suspended from the

practice of law in the District of Columbia for one year. 3

Additionally, 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.