In re O'Donnell

• Decision Date: 26 November 1986
• Docket Number: No. 86-1011.,86-1011.
• Citation: 517 A.2d 1069
• Parties: In re James O'DONNELL, Respondent.
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals

517 A.2d 1069 In re James O'DONNELL, Respondent. No. 86-1011. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Submitted October 28, 1986. Decided November 26, 1986.

On Review of a Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility.

Elizabeth A. Kohlman, Asst. Bar Counsel, and Thomas H. Henderson, Jr., Bar Counsel, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

James O'Donnell, Washington, D.C., pro se.

Before NEWMAN, TERRY, and ROGERS, Associate Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Board on Professional Responsibility found respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(5) for failure to respond to Bar Counsel's inquiries; DR 6-101(A)(3) for neglecting to form a corporation and to file on behalf of the corporation an application for a liquor license within the specified time, and DR 7-101(A)(1) for deliberate and conscious failure to seek the lawful objectives of his clients despite his full awareness of the extent of those objectives. Respondent has not filed a brief before this court. We have reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Board and find its findings are supported by substantial evidence of record. In re Morris, 495 A.2d 1162, 1163 (D.C. 1985); D.C. Rules Governing the Bar, Rule XI, § 7(3). Accordingly, we adopt the Board's findings, which are attached as an appendix to this opinion.

The Board has recommended that respondent be suspended for a year and a day, and that he be required to make restitution of the retainer of $1000 to his clients. This court "shall adopt the recommended disposition of the Board unless to do so would foster a tendency toward inconsistent dispositions for comparable conduct or otherwise would be unwarranted." In re Morris, supra, 495 A.2d at 1163; D.C. Rules Governing the Bar, Rule XI, § 7(3). This sanction is in accordance with sanctions imposed in comparable cases. E.g., In re Roundtree, 467 A.2d 143, 148 (D.C. 1983); In re Fogel, 422 A.2d 966 (D.C. 1980).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that respondent shall be suspended for a year and a day, and shall make restitution to his clients of $1000. This order shall take effect thirty days from the date of this opinion.

So ordered.

TERRY, Associate Judge, concurring:

I join in the opinion and order of the court. I write these few additional words to express my concern that the $400,000 judgment against respondent, entered more than two years ago, has apparently not yet been satisfied. Were it not for the existence of that judgment, I would vote to require far greater restitution to the Donnellys than a mere $1,000, which represents only a refund of the retainer they paid to respondent and does not even begin to make them whole.

Page 1070

One of the factors that this court must consider in any reinstatement case is whether the suspended attorney has taken steps to remedy past wrongs and prevent future ones. In re Roundtree, 503 A.2d 1215, 1217 (D.C. 1985). Respondent should be on notice that if he applies for reinstatement in the bar after his suspension has run its course, whether he has satisfied the outstanding $400,000 judgment before seeking reinstatement may be a matter of substantial importance.

APPENDIX DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY Bar Docket Number: 383-85 IN THE MATTER OF JAMES O'DONNELL, RESPONDENT REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

This matter is before the Board on Professional Responsibility for review of the report of Hearing Committee Number Eight ("the Hearing Committee"), which on April 16, 1986, recommended that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a year and a day and that Respondent be ordered to make restitution to his clients in the amount of...