In re Vohra, 11–BG–1607.

• Decision Date: 27 June 2013
• Docket Number: No. 11–BG–1607.,11–BG–1607.
• Citation: 68 A.3d 766
• Parties: In re Robert N. VOHRA, Respondent. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 426365).
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals

68 A.3d 766

In re Robert N. VOHRA, Respondent.

A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 426365).

No. 11–BG–1607.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Argued Oct. 25, 2012.

Decided June 27, 2013.

Timothy J. Battle for respondent.

Catherine L. Kello, Assistant Bar Counsel, with whom Wallace E. Shipp, Jr., Bar Counsel, and Jennifer P. Lyman, Senior Assistant Bar Counsel, were on the brief, for the Office of Bar Counsel.

Before BLACKBURNE–RIGSBY and BECKWITH, Associate Judges, and BELSON, Senior Judge.

BELSON, Senior Judge:

This matter comes before us upon the Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”). The Board concluded that respondent Robert N. Vohra committed thirteen violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct (“Rules” or “Rule”) in a single immigration matter involving the obtaining of visas for a married couple. Respondent's misconduct included sustained neglect of his clients' matters and numerous Rule violations, some involving dishonesty. The Board unanimously recommended that respondent be suspended for three years and be required to demonstrate his fitness to practice law as a condition of his reinstatement. Respondent takes no exception to the Board's Report and Recommendation.¹ Bar Counsel takes exception only to the Board's recommended sanction, arguing that disbarment is the appropriate sanction. We cannot agree. We accept the Board's findings, agree with its conclusion that respondent committed thirteen Rule violations, and adopt its recommended sanction. Accordingly, we order that respondent be suspended for three years and be required to demonstrate his fitness to practice law as a condition of his reinstatement.

I.

The charges of disciplinary rule violations arose from respondent's representation of Mr. Jeho Choi and his spouse, Ms. You Sun Kim, (“the Chois”) in a single immigration matter. After conducting its investigation, Bar Counsel charged respondent with fourteen Rule violations. Following a three-day hearing, a Hearing Committee issued a sixty-nine page report in which it concluded there was clear and convincing evidence that respondent committed thirteen of the fourteen charged violations.² The Board unanimously adopted the Hearing Committee's findings of fact and agreed with its conclusions of law which, the Board noted, were “well thought out and all-inclusive.” Neither respondent nor Bar Counsel takes exception to the factual findings or legal conclusions made by the Board.

This Court “shall accept the findings of fact made by the Board unless they are unsupported by substantial evidence of record,” and reviews de novo the Board's legal conclusions. D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(h)(1); In re Pierson, 690 A.2d 941, 946–47 (D.C.1997). However, where neither respondent nor Bar Counsel takes exception to the Board's findings of fact or conclusions of law, as is the case here, this court's review of those portions of the Board's report is more deferential. See In re Kline, 11 A.3d 261, 263 (D.C.2011) ( “As neither respondent nor Bar Counsel seriously disputes the facts found by the Hearing Committee, and respondent takes no issue with any of the violations determined by the Board, the questions before us relate to the proper sanction.”); In re Dubow, 729 A.2d 886, 887 (D.C.1999) (review of Board's Report and Recommendation deferential where Bar Counsel filed no exception and where respondent initially excepted but later “bypassed the opportunity to identify and brief the issues”). Our review of the record, appropriately deferential, provides us with no reason to question the Board's factual findings or its legal conclusions that respondent violated Rules 1.1(a) and (b); 1.3(a), (b)(1), (b)(2), and (c); 1.4(a) and (b); 3.3(a)(1); 8.1(a); and 8.4(b), (c), and (d). We adopt the Board's Report and Recommendation, incorporate it as an appendix to this opinion, and provide a summary of the Board's factual findings here.

In September 2004, respondent agreed to represent the Chois, who sought to obtain investment visas based on their purchase of a United Parcel Services (“UPS”) store. As a precondition to their eligibility to apply for the investment visas while in the United States, the Chois were required to remain in valid immigration status. When they retained respondent, the Chois were lawfully present in the United States based on Mr. Choi's earlier-acquired work visa and a corresponding visa for his spouse. These visas were due to expire on June 1, 2005.

In January 2005, respondent filed the Chois' applications for investment visas using an incorrect form. As a result, these applications were rejected and returned to respondent's office by February 2005. Respondent never advised the Chois that their visa applications had been rejected but, instead, allowed the Chois to continue under the false belief that their original applications were still under review. In the meantime, the Chois' earlier-acquired visas expired on June 1, 2005.

In late November 2005, ten months after the incorrectly-filed visa applications were rejected and over five months after the Chois' earlier-acquired visas had expired, respondent resubmitted the visa applications, this time using the correct form, to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). Respondent chose not to inform his clients of the re-filing, and therefore signed the Chois' names on the applications without their knowledge or authorization. He did so despite the requirement that applicants must personally certify to the correctness of the application under penalty of perjury and despite the absence of any statute or regulation authorizing persons other than applicants to sign the required certifications.

Shortly after re-filing the visa applications, respondent received notice from USCIS that it required additional documentation to complete the visa processing, but he failed to notify the Chois of this USCIS action. Respondent did belatedly ask for some, but not all, of the required documentation, which the Chois immediately provided. On January 13, 2006, USCIS denied the resubmitted visa applications based on, inter alia, lack of documentation establishing the source of the funds used by the Chois to purchase the UPS store. Respondent continued to misrepresent to the Chois that their visa applications were pending.

By June 2006, unbeknownst to them, the Chois had been without valid visas for over a year. Concerned about the status of his visa request and the lack of updates from respondent, Mr. Choi contacted USCIS on his own and learned for the first time that the visa applications had been denied five months earlier. Thereafter, when Mr. Choi confronted respondent with this information, respondent told Mr. Choi that he “had filed a motion to reopen and reconsider upon receiving the denial, and that [he] still expected approval.” In fact, respondent had submitted no such motion.

Having lost confidence in respondent—who admitted that in taking on this matter he was in “way over his head”—the Chois hired new immigration counsel. Through successor counsel, the Chois filed new visa applications with supporting documentation explaining the late filing and seeking nunc pro tunc relief. This supporting documentation included a signed affidavit in which respondent admitted that he had originally filed the wrong forms, failed to request appropriate documentation to support the second filing, and made repeated misrepresentations to the Chois regarding the status of their applications.³ Although respondent refunded his $5,000 legal fee to the Chois, they paid successor counsel over $9,000 in attorney's and filing fees for the more involved work required to persuade USCIS to reconsider their visa applications. Fortunately for the Chois, successor counsel's efforts succeeded in obtaining retroactive visa status for them.

II.

We turn now to a discussion of the appropriate sanction. “A sanction recommendation from the Board comes to us with a strong presumption in favor of its imposition.” In re Silva, 29 A.3d 924, 926–27 (D.C.2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Our Rules provide that this Court “shall adopt the recommended disposition of the Board unless to do so would foster a tendency toward inconsistent dispositions for comparable conduct or would otherwise be unwarranted.” D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(h)(1).

This Rule endorses the Board's exercise of broad discretion in handing out discipline that is subject only to a general review for abuse in that discretion's exercise. The rule requires that we enforce a general sense of equality in the sanctions handed out, but it otherwise commands that we should respect the Board's sense of equity in these matters unless that exercise of judgment proves to be unreasonable.

Silva, supra, 29 A.3d at 927 (citations omitted). “Thus, [g]enerally speaking, if the Board's recommended sanction falls within a wide range of acceptable outcomes, it will be adopted and imposed.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

In arriving at its recommendation, the Board carefully considered respondent's violations in light of all the relevant factors which this court has identified in previous bar discipline cases. See, e.g., In re Hutchinson, 534 A.2d 919, 924 (D.C.1987) (en banc). These factors included: (1) the nature and seriousness of the misconduct; (2) prior discipline; (3) prejudice to the client; (4) the respondent's attitude; (5) circumstances in mitigation and aggravation; and (6) the mandate to achieve consistency. See Appendix.

As the Board stated in its Report and Recommendation, sanctions for neglect of one or two immigration matters with attendant dishonesty start as low as a thirty-day suspension and range as high as disbarment. See, e.g., In re Cole, 967 A.2d 1264 (D.C.2009) (thirty-day suspension where respondent neglected his client's asylum application, falsely assured his...