Matter of Whitlock, M-45-80

• Decision Date: 10 February 1982
• Docket Number: No. M-45-80,No. M-62-81.,M-45-80,M-62-81.
• Parties: In the Matter of Richard W. WHITLOCK, A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals

441 A.2d 989

In the Matter of Richard W. WHITLOCK, A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

No. M-45-80

No. M-62-81.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

M-45-80 Argued September 29, 1980.

M-62-81 Argued September 21, 1981.

Decided February 10, 1982.

David C. Bastian, Bethesda, Md., for respondent in M-45-80.

Charles L. Kent, Asst. Bar Counsel, Washington, D. C., at the time the case was argued, for petitioner in M-45-80.

Richard W. Whitlock, pro se in M-62-81. Joseph Mayer, Asst. Bar Counsel, Washington, D. C., for petitioner in M-62-81.

Before HARRIS, MACK and FERREN, Associate Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This court has reviewed two reports and recommendations of the Board on Professional Responsibility adopting Hearing Committee findings that respondent neglected legal matters entrusted to him, DR6-101(A)(3), failed to seek the lawful objectives of his clients and to carry out contracts of employment for professional services, DR7-101(A)(1) and (2), and failed to comply with court orders and to respond to Bar Counsel's requests, DR1-102(A)(5). The Board recommended consecutive six-month suspensions from the practice of law, for a total of twelve months. While the record supports the Board's findings of fact, we conclude that our rules requirement of consistency with other dispositions calls for imposition of one six-month suspension for respondent's conduct involved in both proceedings.

No. M-45-80

This proceeding concerns this court's appointment of respondent to represent defendants in two criminal appeals. He took no further steps after filing notices of appeal. According to the Board:

In each case he failed to file a brief within the prescribed 40-day period, whereupon in each case the appellate Court entered an order directing him to file a statement within 10 days setting forth the reasons for his failure to file the brief. No such statement was filed by respondent in either of the cases. The Court in each case then ordered the respondent to show cause within 10 days, (1) why the Order of Appointment should not be vacated, and (2) why the Court should not refer the matter to the Board on Professional Responsibility for appropriate action in light of the appellate delay and counsel's refusal to diligently prosecute the appeal on behalf of his client. Respondent still made no response, whereupon the Court removed respondent as attorney in each case and referred the matter of his conduct to the Board.

Respondent failed to respond to inquiries from Bar Counsel about each case. After disciplinary proceedings had begun as to each, respondent filed answers admitting the truth of the allegations of negligence but pleading ill health and lack of prejudice to the client.

Respondent appeared pro se and testified before the Hearing Committee. According to the Board:

The Hearing Committee properly found that respondent's conduct violated the Code of Responsibility as follows:

a. DR6-101(AX3) in that he neglected legal matters entrusted to him;

b. DR7-101(A)(1) in that he failed to seek the lawful objectives of his clients through reasonably available means permitted by law and the Disciplinary Rules, except as provided by DR7-101(B);

c. DR7-101(A)(2) in that he failed to carry out contracts of employment entered into with clients for professional services, except as withdrawal is permitted under DR2-110, DR5-102 and DR5-105; and

d. DR1-102(A)(5) in that he failed to comply with Court Orders and respond to Bar Counsel's requests.

The Hearing Committee also found that the physical condition of the respondent was relevant to the subject matter of the two complaints against him, and was a factor which it should consider under Rule XI Section 16(2). It recommended that pursuant to Rule XI Section 16(3) respondent be issued a reprimand for his conduct, and be placed on probation for a period of one year, during which period he would be required periodically to report to Bar Counsel on the condition of his health, and the quantity and quality of his case load, with the right of Bar Counsel to make such recommendations to the Board based on this information as he deemed appropriate.

When the cases came on for review before this Board, the respondent again appeared and made an argument in person. Again he admitted the truth of the charges, but said that because of his heavy case load at the time, the two appeals "simply fell between the cracks." He also stated that because of his increasing ill health he thought he might now have to withdraw from active practice at the Bar.

This Board recognizes the pressures which face attorneys who have a large trial and appellate case load, and it accepts respondent's statements that he was not in good health and was having marital difficulties at the time involved. On the other hand, respondent was voluntarily maintaining a very active CJA practice during this period, and this Board finds inexcusable his complete neglect of his duties as an attorney in the appeal of the two cases — neglect which was compounded by his ignoring the repeated warnings from the Court. The fact that the appeals turned out to be without merit has no bearing upon respondent's conduct.

The Board is likewise of the opinion that Rules XI Sections 16(2) and (3) are not relevant to these cases. The Hearing Committee has not recommended any physical or mental examination of the respondent at this time, and this Board sees no occasion to do so.

It is the recommendation of this Board that respondent be formally suspended from the...