In re Thomas-Bellamy, 15–BG–492.

• Decision Date: 12 November 2015
• Docket Number: No. 15–BG–492.,15–BG–492.
• Citation: 125 A.3d 1136
• Parties: In re Sandy F. THOMAS–BELLAMY, Respondent. A Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 1011060).
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals

125 A.3d 1136

In re Sandy F. THOMAS–BELLAMY, Respondent.

A Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 1011060).

No. 15–BG–492.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Decided Nov. 12, 2015.

PER CURIAM:

This decision is issued as non-precedential. Please refer to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(d) governing the appropriate citation of this opinion.

In this disciplinary matter, Hearing Committee Number Four ("Committee") recommends approval of a petition for negotiated attorney discipline imposing a one-year suspension with reinstatement conditioned upon a showing of fitness. The recommended discipline stems from respondent's false statements in connection with her application for admission to the District of Columbia Bar. Specifically, respondent represented to the Court of Appeals' Committee on Admissions that no pending disciplinary complaints existed against her, but Maryland had initiated investigations into two pending disciplinary complaints. On November 16, 2012, respondent became a member of the District of Columbia Bar.

Respondent admittedly violated four rules of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct in connection with her application for admission to the District of Columbia Bar. The Committee concluded, after the limited hearing on the petition, an in camera review of Bar Counsel's investigative files and records, and an ex parte discussion with Bar Counsel, that respondent violated the four Rules of Professional Conduct identified in the petition. The parties stipulated that this court's previous sanction in In re Thomas–Bellamy, 97 A.3d 591 (D.C.2014) ("Thomas–Bellamy I "), which imposed a six-month suspension, constituted an aggravating factor. Respondent presented mitigating circumstances that included the favourable resolution of her Maryland disciplinary cases, and the fact that she did not take on any District of Columbia clients and fully cooperated with Bar Counsel. As a result, Bar Counsel and respondent negotiated imposition of discipline in the form of a one-year suspension with a fitness requirement, to run consecutive to the sanction imposed in Thomas–Bellamy I.

We accept the Committee's recommendation because it properly applied D.C. Bar R. XI § 12.1(c) to arrive at this conclusion, and we find no error in the Committee's determination. The Committee considered respondent's prior sanction as an aggravating circumstance. Furthermore, it properly considered the mitigating...