In re Hallal, No. 04-BG-839.
| Decision Date | 27 March 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 04-BG-839. |
| Citation | 944 A.2d 1085 |
| Parties | In the Matter of John R. HALLAL, Respondent. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 444398). |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Before REID, GLICKMAN, and KRAMER, Associate Judges.
After respondent, John R. Hallal, filed a limited exception to the Board on Professional Responsibility's ("Board") September 30, 2005 Report and Recommendation, we remanded his case to the Board to determine whether he should be afforded nunc pro tunc treatment with respect to the effective date of his uncontested reciprocal suspension. Following remand, the Board recommended that respondent be suspended for five years from the practice of law in the District of Columbia, with the suspension to run nunc pro tunc, from June 23, 2003. We accept the recommendation of the Board.
Mr. Hallal was admitted to the District of Columbia Bar, by motion, on December 2, 1994. He has never practiced law in the District of Columbia. Mr. Hallal practiced law as a member of the Massachusetts Bar from September 21, 1991 until June 23, 2003. On May 14, 2004, he was suspended indefinitely by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, for improperly billing clients for his personal expenses over a number of years, as a partner in the Boston firm of Gadsby & Hannah, L.L.P. The suspension was ordered effective nunc pro tunc from June 23, 2003. On July 26, 2004, this Court suspended Mr. Hallal on an interim basis, pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(d) and directed the Board to recommend whether identical, greater or lesser discipline should be imposed as reciprocal discipline to the Massachusetts Bar's sanction. On September 30, 2005, the Board recommended that this Court impose "the functionally equivalent discipline of a five-year suspension, with a requirement to prove fitness to practice as a condition of reinstatement."1
While this matter was pending before this Court, Mr. Hallal filed a motion to extend time to file limited exceptions, asserting that he had not received any substantive pleadings from the District's Bar Counsel until October 24-28, 2005. Mr. Hallal also filed two affidavits-an "In re Goldberg Affidavit" and a "D.C. Bar Rule XI Section 14(g) Affidavit." In his first affidavit, he stated that his attorney and the Massachusetts Bar contacted the D.C. Bar, on his behalf, in or around July 2005, to inform them of the Massachusetts disciplinary proceedings and actions. However, correspondence from Bar Counsel and the Board was sent to his old address and he did not receive it. He also stated that he had not practiced law in the District of Columbia. In the second affidavit, he averred that in 2003, he notified all of his clients and opposing parties of his suspension by the Massachusetts court and that he had no clients or matters pending in the District of Columbia. Subsequently, Bar Counsel filed a consent motion and this Court remanded this matter back to the Board. The Board reaffirmed its previous recommendation of a five-year suspension with a fitness condition but also recommended the suspension commence, nunc pro tunc, from June 23, 2003.
Citing In re Goldberg, 460 A.2d 982 (D.C.1983), Mr. Hallal argues that he qualifies for nunc pro tunc treatment because he (1) promptly notified DC Bar Counsel of the Massachusetts proceedings and (2) has never practiced law in the District of Columbia. Bar Counsel does not oppose Mr. Hallal's request for nunc pro tunc treatment.
"[T]his Court must accept the Board's findings of fact so long as they are supported by substantial evidence of record." In re Evans, 578 A.2d 1141, 1142 (D.C.1990) (citations omitted). "This Court [also] defers to the Board's recommended disposition unless the sanction is unwarranted or inconsistent with sanctions for comparable conduct." In re Slosberg, 650 A.2d 1329, 1330 (D.C.1994) (citing D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 9(g); In re Mintz, 626 A.2d 926, 927 (D.C.1993)). There is a rebuttable presumption favoring identical reciprocal discipline. In re Weiss, 940 A.2d 104 (D.C.2007) (citing In re Goldsborough, 654 A.2d 1285 (D.C.1995), D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(g)).
In Goldberg, supra, we said:
If the attorney "promptly" notified Bar Counsel of any professional disciplinary action in another jurisdiction, as he or she is required to do under Rule XI, § 18(1), and if the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
IN RE SIBLEY
...to that imposed by the original disciplining jurisdiction. See In re Zilberberg, 612 A.2d 832, 834 (D.C.1992); see also In re Hallal, 944 A.2d 1085, 1087 (D.C.2008). The presumption applies unless the party opposing discipline (or urging non-identical discipline) shows, by clear and convinc......
- Watkins v. District of Columbia, No. 04-CV-1072.
-
In re Weekes
...the respondents in Gardner and Susman, supra. Nor is Mr. Weekes's situation comparable to that of the respondent in In re Hallal, 944 A.2d 1085, 1087-88, 1088 n. 2 (D.C.2008), where respondent did not receive communications from the Board or Bar Counsel because they were stamped "undelivera......
-
In re Lee.
...to that imposed by the original disciplining jurisdiction. See In re Zilberberg, 612 A.2d 832, 834 (D.C.1992); see also In re Hallal, 944 A.2d 1085, 1087 (D.C.2008). The presumption applies unless the party opposing discipline (or urging non-identical discipline) shows, by clear and convinc......