In re Steinberg
Decision Date | 07 July 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 05-BG-413.,Bar Registration No. 350983,05-BG-413. |
Citation | 878 A.2d 496 |
Parties | In re Andrew M. STEINBERG, Respondent. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals . |
Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Before SCHWELB and RUIZ, Associate Judges, and KING, Senior Judge.
In this disciplinary proceeding against respondent, Andrew M. Steinberg, Esquire, a member of our Bar, the Board on Professional Responsibility ("Board") has found that respondent violated D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(a) ( ), 1.1(b) ( ), 1.2(a) ( ), 1.3(a) ( ), 1.3(c) ( ), and 1.4(a) ( ). We accept the Board's findings and adopt its recommended sanction of a sixty-day suspension with reinstatement conditioned on making restitution to the client.
The respondent is no stranger to the D.C. disciplinary system. The Board considered respondent's disciplinary history, which includes three separate matters each of which resulted in a thirty-day suspension.1 See In re Steinberg, 720 A.2d 900, 901 n. 1 (D.C.1998) ( ); In re Steinberg, 761 A.2d 279, 280 (D.C.2000) ( ); In re Steinberg, 864 A.2d 120, 120 (D.C.2004) ( ). Based largely on this disciplinary history, and after comparing the violations in this case with similar cases and the sanctions imposed in those cases, the Board recommends that respondent be suspended for sixty days and that reinstatement be conditioned on his making restitution to his client in the amount of $750.00 plus interest at 6% per annum. The Board further recommends that, because the violations in this case took place during a time frame different from the period of violations for which respondent was suspended last year in disciplinary case No. 03-BG-801, see In re Steinberg, 864 A.2d at 125-27, the sixty-day suspension in this case should run consecutively to respondent's thirty-day suspension in No. 03-BG-801.2
We will accept the Board's findings as long as they are supported by substantial evidence in the record. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g)(1). Moreover, we will impose the sanction recommended by the Board "unless to do so would foster a tendency toward inconsistent dispositions for comparable conduct or would otherwise be unwarranted." Id. As no exceptions to the Board's Report and Recommendation have been filed, we give heightened deference to the Board's recommendation. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g)(2); In re Delaney, 697 A.2d 1212, 1214 (D.C.1997). We find substantial support in the record for the Board's findings, and accordingly, we accept them. We also adopt the sanction recommended by the Board, which takes into account respondent's disciplinary history, and is not inconsistent with discipline imposed in cases involving similar violations. See, e.g., In re Ontell, 593 A.2d 1038, 1041 (D.C.1991) ( ); In re Ontell, 724 A.2d 1204, 1204 (D.C.1999) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Chapman, No. 07-BG-800.
...attorney lied to client about claim after allowing statute of limitations to lapse and did not accept responsibility); In re Steinberg, 878 A.2d 496, 497 (D.C.2005) (60-days for neglect where attorney had three prior 30-day suspensions); In re Drew, 693 A.2d 1127 (D.C.1997) (60-days for neg......
- In re Steinberg
- In re Steinberg, No. 06-BG-1393.
-
In re Coopet
...Board's findings are supported and its recommended sanction does not constitute an inconsistent disposition, see, e.g., In re Steinberg, 878 A.2d 496, 498 (D.C.2005) (conditioning reinstatement on restitution and continuing legal education requirements); In re Hallmark, 831 A.2d 366, 376 (D......