In re Anthony

• Decision Date: 13 December 2018
• Docket Number: No. 18-BG-763,18-BG-763
• Citation: 197 A.3d 1070
• Parties: IN RE Warner H. ANTHONY Jr., Respondent. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 412731)
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals

197 A.3d 1070

IN RE Warner H. ANTHONY Jr., Respondent. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 412731)

No. 18-BG-763

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Decided December 13, 2018

Per Curiam :

In this case, the Board on Professional Responsibility has adopted the Ad Hoc Hearing Committee's findings that Mr. Anthony violated multiple disciplinary rules in connection with his representation of two clients (a married couple) before the U.S. Tax Court and his failure to respond to Disciplinary Counsel's investigation of that representation. The Board also adopted the Committee's recommendation that Mr. Anthony be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and that his reinstatement be conditioned on a showing of fitness. We review and adopt the Board's recommendation.

After Mr. Anthony failed to respond to Disciplinary Counsel's specification of charges, Disciplinary Counsel filed a motion for default that Mr. Anthony did not oppose. The Ad Hoc Hearing Committee ultimately issued its report pursuant to the default procedures established by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 8 (f), providing that allegations outlined in an unanswered petition are deemed admitted. Based on the sworn statements of Disciplinary Counsel, the Committee found that Mr. Anthony failed to competently and diligently represent his clients in a federal tax matter when he did not provide them with a written retainer agreement and then, after filing three petitions in the United States Tax Court on their behalf, did not comply with court rules or respond to court orders, resulting in dismissal of the petitions. The Committee found that the dismissal of these petitions was prejudicial to Mr. Anthony's clients because the dismissals foreclosed any further challenge to the contested tax assessments. Further, the Committee found that Mr. Anthony failed to respond to his clients' request for information and misrepresented the status of the dismissed petitions, telling his clients that their petitions were successfully proceeding before the court. Thereafter, when Mr. Anthony's clients obtained new counsel, Mr. Anthony failed to respond to counsel's request for the client files.

In light of Mr. Anthony's numerous and extended rule violations,¹ and the resulting financial prejudice to his clients, the Ad Hoc Hearing Committee recommended that he be suspended for one year. Further, the Committee determined that both the nature of his misconduct and his absenteeism in the disciplinary proceedings raised serious doubts as to his fitness to practice law and his ability to conform his conduct to the Rules in the future.² Accordingly, the Committee recommended that Mr. Anthony be required to demonstrate his fitness to practice in order to be reinstated to the Bar.

Neither Mr. Anthony nor Disciplinary Counsel filed any exceptions to the Committee's report. 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...