In re Hadzi-Antich, 85-52.

Docket NºNo. 85-52.
Citation497 A.2d 1062
Case DateAugust 09, 1985
CourtCourt of Appeals of Columbia District
497 A.2d 1062
In re Theodore HADZI-ANTICH, Respondent, A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
No. 85-52.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Submitted August 6, 1985.
Decided August 9, 1985.*

Before NEWMAN, TERRY and ROGERS, Associate Judges.


In this disciplinary proceeding, the Board on Professional Responsibility (BPR) found

Page 1063

that respondent, a member of the District of Columbia Bar, violated Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(4) by "engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation" and recommended that he be publicly censured. Briefly stated, the evidence showed that respondent submitted a resume to a prospective employer, Southern Methodist University School of Law, which contained false information. He was hired as an Assistant Professor of Law but resigned after being confronted with the falsehoods on his resume. Further details are set forth in the report and recommendation of the BPR, which is appended to this order and incorporated herein by reference.

Respondent does not challenge the BPR's findings, but contends that the recommended sanction is excessive. We do not agree. This court must give deference to the BPR's decision and adopt its recommendation "unless to do so would foster a tendency toward inconsistent dispositions for comparable conduct or otherwise would be unwarranted." D.C. Bar R. XI, § 7(3). In this case we are satisfied that the BPR's recommendation is consistent with other dispositions involving comparable conduct. E.g., In re Molovinsky, No. M-31-79 (D.C. August 23, 1979); In re Christmas, No. M-21-76 (D.C. June 2, 1976). See also In re Lamberis, 93 Ill.2d 222, 66 Ill.Dec. 623, 443 N.E.2d 549 (1982) (respondent, a student enrolled in a graduate program, censured for plagiarizing two published works); In re Norwood, 80 A.D.2d 278, 438 N.Y.S.2d 788 (1981) (respondent censured for misrepresenting his academic credentials on his resume and giving false information about his tax returns on a job questionnaire); cf. In re Lavery, 90 Wash.2d 463, 587 P.2d 157 (1978) (90-day suspension ordered when respondent misrepresented his achievements on his resume and misused professional credentials of his law school professors). For the reasons stated by the BPR, we specifically reject appellant's argument that the sanction imposed here should be the same as that imposed in Maryland.

It is therefore ORDERED that respondent be, and he hereby is, publicly censured.

Bar Docket Number: 83-83

This matter is before the Board on Professional Responsibility upon the report of Hearing Committee Number Eight, which has found Respondent's conduct in violation of the standards governing the practice of law in the District of Columbia. Following hearing on May 24, 1984, at which oral testimony and documentary evidence were presented, Hearing Committee Number Eight concluded that Respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) by "engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation." A complaint had been lodged against Respondent by his former employer when he was found to have falsified his resume in applying for a teaching position at Southern Methodist University School of Law in Dallas, Texas. Respondent was offered the position and subsequently became Assistant Professor of Law at Southern Methodist from August 1981, until his resignation in May 1983. On or about May 10, 1983, Dean Jeswald W. Salacuse of the SMU School of Law confronted Respondent with alleged discrepancies in information contained in Respondent's resume. Specifically, Dean Salacuse questioned whether Respondent had graduated first out of 185 students in his University of Oklahoma Law School class, had been Editor-in-Chief of the Oklahoma Law Review, or had graduated summa cum laude from the University of Connecticut in 1973, as stated in his resume. Respondent admitted the errors but claimed that a corrected

Page 1064

resume had been prepared and forwarded to SMU sometime in November 1980. Officials at SMU School of Law denied having received the corrected resume. Respondent soon thereafter resigned his appointment.


Respondent's resume was prepared in April 1980, by the Resume Place, a resume printing service on 18th Street, N.W., based on information supplied by Respondent but relayed to the service by his wife. Respondent contends that his original draft was accurate but was embellished at the Resume Place by his wife and one of their editors (Tr. 31). Respondent further states that the completed resume was not used between...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • IN RE ABRAMS, 91-BG-1518
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • February 5, 1997
    ...1987) (where the lawyer assisted his client in fraudulent conduct in connection with a real estate closing), and In re Hadzi-Antich, 497 A.2d 1062 (D.C. 1985) (where the lawyer made false statements on a resume). A 30-day suspension was ordered in In re Miller, 553 A.2d 201 (D.C. 1989), eve......
  • In re Cleaver-Bascombe, 06-BG-858.
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • January 14, 2010
    ...decide the question of sanction. 5. The Board reported: Public censure was ordered for false statements on a resume. In re Hadzi-Antich, 497 A.2d 1062 (D.C.1985). A thirty-day suspension was ordered for making three separate misrepresentations to a court; In re Rosen, 481 A.2d 451 (D.C.1984......
  • Attorney Grievance Com'n of Maryland v. Gilbert
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • October 6, 1986
    ...determination of Hallinan's fitness to practice law. 421 P.2d at 94-95, 55 Cal.Rptr. 256-57. Gilbert also relies on In re Hadzi-Antich, 497 A.2d 1062 (D.C.1985), a case in which the court ordered a public reprimand for an attorney who had misrepresented his credentials on an employment appl......
  • IN RE BENJAMIN, 94-BG-1318
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • July 31, 1997
    ...of Columbia involving two instances of misrepresentation. See, e.g., In re Garner, 576 A.2d 1356, 1357 (D.C. 1990); In re Hadzi-Antich, 497 A.2d 1062, 1063 (D.C. 1985). If anything, a public censure is at the low end of the spectrum of possible sanctions, given Mr. Benjamin's prior discipli......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT