In Re Steven Kreiss

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. 19-BG-843

IN RE STEVEN KREISS, RESPONDENT.

A Member of the Bar

of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 58297)

On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility

(DDN 191-18)

(Decided November 14, 2019)

Before THOMPSON and EASTERLY, Associate Judges, and STEADMAN, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM: The Board on Professional Responsibility adopted the Ad Hoc Hearing Committee’s findings that respondent, Steven Kreiss, violated District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct 1.8(i) and 1.16(d), and its recommendation that respondent be publicly censured and required to attend an ethics continuing legal education course (CLE) approved by Disciplinary Counsel. The Committee found by clear and convincing evidence that respondent had improperly imposed a lien on

2

a former client’s file and failed to timely return the file to his client or new counsel despite repeated requests by new counsel.

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.”). Neither respondent nor Disciplinary Counsel has filed exceptions to the Board’s Report and Recommendation, and we are satisfied that the findings are supported by substantial evidence. We see no reason to reject the discipline recommended by the Board. See id. at 543.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that respondent Steven Kreiss is hereby publically censured and he is further required to complete an ethics CLE approved by Disciplinary Counsel.

So ordered.