In re Stancil

• Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 19, 2024
• Docket: 24-BG-0848
• 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-0848

IN RE WILLIAM S. STANCIL, RESPONDENT.

A Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 370895)

On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility (BDN No. 21-BD-058; DDN Nos. 2022-D073 & 2022-Dl42)

(Decided December 19, 2024)

Before: EASTERLY and SHANKER, Associate Judges, and RUIZ, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM: The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that

William S. Stancil be suspended from the practice of law for ninety days with

reinstatement conditioned upon a showing of fitness based on its finding that he

violated D.C. R. Pro. Conduct 1.1(a) & (b), 3.1, and 8.4(d). Although respondent

filed non-specific exceptions to the Board’s report, he failed to file a brief as

directed. Accordingly, as we stated in our November 27, 2024, order, this court

determined that we would decide the matter on the record alone. 2

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 substantive exceptions have been filed and we

agree that the Board’s recommended sanction is reasonable and appropriate for the

violations presented here, 1 we accept the recommendation that respondent be

suspended for ninety days with reinstatement conditioned on demonstrating fitness

to practice law. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Disciplinary Counsel’s motion to proceed on the record is

granted. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that respondent William S. Stancil is hereby

suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for ninety days, with

reinstatement conditioned on demonstrating fitness to practice law. Respondent’s

1 See In re Chapman, 284 A.3d 395, 398-99, 402-03 (D.C. 2022) (imposing ninety-day suspension for violating Maryland rules concerning competence, filing frivolous claims, and failing to consult with client after he encouraged a client to pay a retainer fee and pursue employment discrimination claim without advising client of administrative exhaustion or statute of limitations issues that were fatal to claim); see also In re Lea, 969 A.2d 881, 894 (D.C. 2009) (imposing fitness requirement where attorney failed to participate in disciplinary proceedings). 3

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.