In re Clennon

• Decision Date: 05 April 2018
• Docket Number: No. 18–BG–66,18–BG–66
• Citation: 182 A.3d 121 (Mem)
• Parties: IN RE Cary CLENNON, Respondent. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 366816)
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals

182 A.3d 121 (Mem)

IN RE Cary CLENNON, Respondent.

A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 366816)

No. 18–BG–66

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Decided April 5, 2018

Per Curiam:

In this case, the Board on Professional Responsibility has adopted the Ad Hoc Hearing Committee's uncontested findings that respondent Cary Clennon failed to represent a criminal defendant after being appointed to represent him under the Criminal Justice Act, and made factual misrepresentations to both his client and the Court in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (a), 1.3 (c), 1.4 (a), 1.4 (b), 3.3 (a)(1), 8.4 (c), and 8.4 (d). Before the Hearing Committee, Mr. Clennon stipulated to facts supporting the violations and expressed remorse and confidence that he would not repeat these actions in the future. The Hearing Committee recommended that Mr. Clennon be suspended for a period of sixty days, stayed in favor of a one-year probationary period during which he must meet certain conditions. Neither Mr. Clennon nor Disciplinary Counsel filed any exceptions to the Committee's report.

In light of this record, the Board recommends that this court determine that Mr. Clennon violated District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (a), 1.3 (c), 1.4 (a), 1.4 (b), 3.3 (a)(1), 8.4 (c), and 8.4 (d). The Board further recommends that the Court accept the Hearing Committee's recommendation that Mr. Clennon be suspended for a period of sixty days stayed in favor of a one-year probationary period during which he must meet certain conditions. Neither Mr. Clennon nor Disciplinary Counsel has filed an exception to the Board's Report and Recommendation.

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."). We discern no reason to depart from the Board's recommendations, particularly in light of Mr. Clennon's stipulations of fact. See In re Burton , 472 A.2d 831, 846 (D.C. 1984) (Disciplinary Counsel must prove each violation and if respondent believes that a defense exists and raises the defense, Disciplinary Counsel must establish the defense does not apply). Those stipulations justify the discipline recommended by the Board. See, e.g. , In re Francis , 137 A.3d 187 (D.C. 2016) (...