In re Holdmann, 00-BG-1214.
Decision Date | 06 November 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 00-BG-1214.,00-BG-1214. |
Citation | 834 A.2d 887 |
Parties | In re Lee F. HOLDMANN, Respondent. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. |
Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Albert D. Brault, Washington, DC, with whom Joan F. Brault was on the brief, for respondent.
Catherine L. Kello, Assistant Bar Counsel, with whom Joyce E. Peters, Bar Counsel, was on the brief, for the Office of Bar Counsel.
Before TERRY, SCHWELB, and GLICKMAN, Associate Judges.
On November 7, 2002, the Board on Professional Responsibility (BPR or Board) recommended that this court impose reciprocal discipline against Lee F. Holdmann, Esquire, a member of our Bar. Holdmann opposes the recommendation, contending that the discipline suggested by the Board—public censure—differs inappropriately from the sanction imposed by the Maryland Court of Appeals. Because Holdmann has waived any objection to the Board's recommendation by failing to present any challenge to the Board, we follow that recommendation and publicly censure Holdmann.
On July 27, 2000, in an order which was issued by consent, the Maryland Court of Appeals issued a reprimand to Holdmann. In the negotiated settlement that led to the Maryland discipline, Holdmann admitted, with respect to two of five charges brought against him by Maryland's Attorney Grievance Commission, that he had violated three Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct by not promptly complying with reasonable requests for information from his clients and by not diligently pursuing the clients' legal matters.1 The remaining allegations against Holdmann were dismissed. As a part of the negotiated discipline, Holdmann was required to pay costs of $8,252.86. Further, the order, while otherwise public, was not to be published in the Maryland Reporter or in the Atlantic Reporter, Second Series.
On September 18, 2000, Bar Counsel submitted to this court a certified copy of the order of the Maryland Court of Appeals. Three days later, this court referred the matter to the BPR for its recommendation, inter alia, as to whether a sanction identical to Maryland's, or a greater or lesser sanction, should be imposed as reciprocal discipline. The court's order also stated:
ORDERED that Bar Counsel inform the Board on Professional Responsibility of h[er] position regarding reciprocal discipline within 30 days of the date of this order. Thereafter, respondent shall show cause before the Board on Professional Responsibility, if cause there be, within 10 days why identical, greater o[r] lesser discipline should not be imposed in the District of Columbia.
On October 2, 2000, Bar Counsel submitted her Statement to the Board and recommended that Holdmann be publicly censured as reciprocal discipline. Although, as noted above, Holdmann had been advised by the court both that he had the right to respond to Bar Counsel's Statement and that the Board could recommend a greater (or lesser) sanction than that imposed in Maryland, he did not respond to the order to show cause, nor did he participate in any way in the proceedings before the Board. On November 7, 2002, the Board, in a unanimous nine-page Report, recommended (in conformity with the views of Bar Counsel) that Holdmann be publicly censured. The Board did not recommend that Holdmann be required to pay costs. Holdmann then excepted to the Board's recommendation, and the case is now before us.
In this court, Holdmann argues for the first time that public censure should not be imposed as reciprocal discipline on the basis of his consent to what he characterizes as a private reprimand in Maryland,2 especially since Holdmann did not admit the specific facts underlying the conceded Maryland violations. We take no position on the merits of his argument, however, because he has waived the issue by not presenting it to the Board.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Artis
...an attorney who fails to present an issue to the Board waives it and cannot present it for the first time to this court. In re Holdmann, 834 A.2d 887, 889 (D.C.2003) (citing In re Abrams, 689 A.2d 6, 9 (D.C.), cert denied, 521 U.S. 1121, 117 S.Ct. 2515, 138 L.Ed.2d 1017 (1997); In re Ray, 6......
-
In re Yelverton
...to the Board waives it and cannot present it for the first time to this court.”In re Artis, 883 A.2d 85, 97 (D.C.2005) ; In re Holdmann, 834 A.2d 887, 889 (D.C.2003) ; In re Abrams, 689 A.2d 6, 9 (D.C.1997) ; In re Ray, 675 A.2d 1381, 1387 n. 5 (D.C.1996) (failing to raise an issue before t......
-
In re Fuller
...that Respondent be ordered to pay costs, since this jurisdiction does not require the payment of costs by respondents. See In re Holdmann, 834 A.2d 887, 888 (D.C.2003). IV. For the foregoing reasons, the Board recommends that the Court issue an order of admonishment against Respondent as id......
-
In re Godette, 05-BG-412.
...by failing to participate in the proceeding to offer evidence to the contrary. It cites in support of this proposition In re Holdmann, 834 A.2d 887, 889 (D.C.2003). Holdmann, which holds that an attorney in a disciplinary proceeding who fails to raise an issue before the Board cannot challe......