Fred Grabowsky: Bar Counsel Number One
By Wallace E. “Gene” Shipp Jr.
I met Fred Grabowsky in 1970 when I was a first-year law student doing pro bono investigations on Criminal Justice Act cases. Fred and John Treanor, who went on to become a hearing commissioner for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, were appointed to represent the accused in a homicide case before the United States District Court involving the death of three people in a restaurant on the edge of Georgetown. After a lot of work we had a moment of clarity, and the client entered a plea before Judge Gessell. I did not yet know a lot about Fred except he was very good at the defense of his client.
Fred passed away in January at the age of 81. I learned from him in so many ways, and I was impressed by him my entire legal career. So, I wanted to take a moment and write about him.
Fred was the first Bar Counsel appointed by the Board on Professional Responsibility. He opened the office on April 1, 1973, (I know, April Fools’ Day). Fred served as Bar Counsel for 10 years until 1983 when he left to join the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.
The Office of Bar Counsel was a third career for Fred. Lt. Col. Grabowsky graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1949 and had a distinguished career as a member of the United States Marine Corps before he retired. Fred had obtained his Juris Doctor from Boston College and his Master of Laws from The George Washington University while serving in the marines. He then went into private practice where he handled a lot of criminal defense work, and he was the first president of the Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association.
Fred hired me as an assistant bar counsel in October 1980. I had been in private practice almost eight years at the time. My first assignment was to investigate and prosecute ethical complaints arising out of criminal cases. Fred made it very clear that our prosecutorial philosophy was that we don’t win cases nor do we lose cases. Our job was to present cases fairly and factually and let the decision makers of the disciplinary system decide what needed to be done with the attorney.
My first observation of Fred was his straightforward honesty. The marine in him knew right from wrong with very little gray area. The professional in him knew fair play. Fred’s word was his bond, and he expected nothing less from each person with whom he dealt.
Fred also taught me a lot about dealing with the people you manage from a boss’s perspective. If you made sure your employees are taken care of, and you concern yourself with their family and what is going on in their lives, you will have a loyal and productive workforce. He was fair to you, and you felt an obligation to be fair to him. If you disappointed him, he could be forceful in bringing that to your attention, and you learned. On those rare occasions someone was fired, you knew that no one could complain about fairness—a good lesson to learn.
Finally, ethics and professional responsibility were his life. He was a founding incorporator of the National Organization of Bar Counsel, which is more than 40 years old. He was the original registered agent for the group. He was the lone attorney in a two-person Bar Counsel shop when the Watergate cases cascaded from Capitol Hill and the United States District Court. He handled them all, along with the regular caseload of misbehaving lawyers. He spoke to any group—big or small—that requested a speaker on professional responsibility, and, boy, could he tell a story. It soon became clear to me that in teaching, a good story which highlights your points went down a lot smoother to an ethics course audience than a lecture.
The Office of Bar Counsel joins the chorus of people who remember Fred and all he has meant to us and the profession. Our heartfelt sympathy goes out to his wife of 57 years, Laila, and the terrifically talented and large family Fred left behind.
 Another Fred, Fred Abramson, was the fourth bar counsel. He passed away while still at the helm in 1991. See Wash. Law. July/Aug. 1991, p. 22.
 Fred Grabowsky was the subject of a resolution commending his service adopted by the National Organization of Bar Counsel membership at its Midyear Meeting on February 9 in Los Angeles.
Disciplinary Actions Taken by the Board on Professional Responsibility
In re William S. Bach. Bar No. 448392. December 20, 2007. The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals disbar Bach for collecting an unreasonable fee and intentionally misappropriating client funds while serving as a conservator for an incapacitated adult ward of the Probate Division of the Superior Court, who resided in a nursing home. (Rules 1.5(a) and 1.15(a)).
In re Janice L. Booker. Bar No. 332957. December 18, 2007. The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals disbar Booker by consent, and that the court adopts Bar Counsel’s recommendation and impose an effective date of disbarment no earlier than January 31, 2008.
In re John E. Carpenter. Bar No. 420756. December 20, 2007. The Board on Professional Responsibility directed Bar Counsel to issue Carpenter an informal admonition for disclosing client confidences and secrets, without client consent, in his motion to withdraw as counsel to plaintiff in a medical malpractice matter. (Rule 1.6(a)).
In re Patrick J. Cole. Bar No. 358025. December 20, 2007. The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals suspend Cole for 30 days. Cole’s discipline stems from his mishandling of an asylum immigration case, including misleading his client on the status of the matter despite numerous telephone calls from his client. Cole violated rules pertaining to competence, diligence and zeal, communication, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. (Rules 1.1(a), 1.1(b), 1.3(a), 1.3(b)(1), 1.3(c), 1.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d)).
In re Mark H. Dickson. Bar No. 434898. January 24, 2008. The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals disbar Dickson by consent.
In re Faith D. Ruderfer. Bar No. 379731. December 19, 2007. The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals disbar Ruderfer by consent, nunc pro tunc to September 20, 2007, provided she corrects technical defects in D.C. Bar Rule XI, section 14(g) affidavits.
In re Eleanor M. Wilson-Lindsay. Bar No. 324533. December 26, 2007. The Board on Professional Responsibility dismissed Wilson-Lindsay’s petition for reinstatement as insufficient.
In re Donal B. Barrett. Bar No. 359787. December 21, 2007. In a reciprocal matter from Massachusetts, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose substantially different reciprocal discipline and disbar Barrett. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County suspended Barrett for two years, with a requirement that he pay costs for engaging in intentional misappropriation when he used corporate funds for his personal benefit and then created false documents and made false statements to conceal his actions.
In re Franklin Feigenbaum. Bar No. 426153. December 21, 2007. In a reciprocal matter from California, based on two orders of the Supreme Court of the state of California, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals suspend Feigenbaum for five years with fitness. The first California order directed that Feigenbaum be suspended for six months, but it stayed the suspension in favor of a one-year probation subject to conditions that included 90 days of actual suspension, and ordered Feigenbaum to perform acts specified within the order within 30 and 40 days, respectively. The order was based on a finding of the California State Bar Court, which concluded that Feigenbaum abandoned his client and withdrew from employment without taking reasonable steps to avoid reasonable foreseeable prejudice to his client. The court also concluded that he failed to cooperate with the California disciplinary authorities’ investigation of his conduct, to notify his client of a scheduled court hearing, and to return his client’s telephone calls or otherwise communicate with his client. The second California order accepted Feigenbaum’s voluntary resignation with charges pending, alleging that he had violated the first California order by failing to comply with subdivision (c) of California Rule 955, which requires a suspended attorney to file an affidavit showing that he notified his clients and opposing counsel of his suspension.
In re Darryl K. Fountain. Bar No. 386220. December 20, 2007. In a consolidated reciprocal matter based on two decisions from Delaware, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose identical reciprocal discipline of disbarment based on a 2006 proceeding, or, in the alternative, that the court impose substantially different discipline in the form of disbarment based upon a 2005 Delaware proceeding. In the 2005 proceeding, the Supreme Court of Delaware suspended Fountain for three years, with the right to reapply in two years upon satisfaction of certain conditions. Consolidating five cases, the 2005 Delaware court found, inter alia, that Fountain failed to maintain proper records for his attorney trust account, repeatedly commingled entrusted funds with his personal funds, overdrew his attorney trust account 26 times in a single 10-month period, failed to file state and federal income tax returns for 2002, failed to document use of advanced fees from multiple clients, failed to return client property, withdrew advanced fees from his trust account prior to earning those fees, failed to comply with mandatory continuing legal education requirements, failed to respond to certain inquiries from disciplinary authorities, and repeatedly certified falsely that his books and records complied with certain record-keeping requirements. In the 2006 proceeding, the Delaware court disbarred Fountain following his failure to file an answer to disciplinary charges served on him stemming, in part, from facts uncovered by the receiver appointed as a result of the 2005 matter. When the receiver took over Fountain’s law practice, the balance in Fountain’s escrow account was $33.50 and the balance in his operating account was negative $1,677.77. Fountain told the receiver that he owed as much as $46,000 in unearned fees and other funds to approximately 22 clients. The audit indicated that, when respondent received a retainer from a client, his practice immediately was to: (1) cash it; (2) deposit it into his operating account and withdraw the entire amount within days; or (3) deposit it into the escrow account and withdraw the entire amount within days. The auditor further found that respondent had not filed tax returns for the years 1998, 1999, and 2003, in addition to the 2002 returns that were the subject of the prior year’s disciplinary proceeding.
In re W. Bradney Griffin. Bar No. 459202. December 20, 2007. In a reciprocal matter from Vermont, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose identical reciprocal discipline and suspend Griffin for 30 days, nunc pro tunc from July 31, 2007, followed by 90-days’ probation subject to the conditions imposed in Vermont. The Vermont Board on Professional Responsibility suspended Griffin for failure to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation in that jurisdiction.
In re Stephen D. Landfield. Bar No. 388146. December 26, 2007. In a reciprocal matter from New Jersey, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose functionally equivalent reciprocal discipline and suspend Landfield for six months with fitness and subject to his satisfaction of the additional terms imposed by the New Jersey court. In addition, the board recommends in any fitness proceeding, Landfield should be required to provide proof of his fitness as attested to by a mental health professional approved by the Office of Bar Counsel. The board further recommends, should Landfield be reinstated on a summary basis in New Jersey without objection from New Jersey Bar Counsel, that he should be eligible to move to vacate the fitness requirement in this jurisdiction. Finally, the board recommends Landfield’s suspension should run nunc pro tunc from July 20, 2006, if he files a notarized or properly sworn supplemental affidavit pursuant to D.C. Bar Rule XI, section 14(g) within 30 days of the date of this report, but if he does not, the suspension should run from the filing date of such an affidavit. The Supreme Court of New Jersey suspended Landfield for periods of three and six months, all to be served concurrently, based on misconduct in four separate disciplinary proceedings. In the first disciplinary proceeding, based on two separate matters, Landfield: (1) failed to cooperate with a disciplinary investigator or to answer a disciplinary complaint; and (2) failed to notify his client of the receipt of settlement proceeds, to promptly pay them to the client, misrepresenting to his client that he would file a motion to vacate the judgment, and failed to respond to the grievance committee or to file an answer to a formal ethics complaint. In the second disciplinary proceeding, based on two separate matters, Landfield (1) neglected his client’s appeal and then failed to respond to the client’s numerous attempts to reach him after the client learned that the appeal had been dismissed; and (2) neglected a domestic relations matter involving the administration of medication to a child. In the third disciplinary proceeding, based on three separate matters, Landfield (1) failed to take action following his client’s divorce to transfer her husband’s retirement savings to her IRA account, failed to reply to the client’s numerous inquiries, failed to communicate the basis or rate of his fee to his client in writing, and failed to respond to the inquiries of disciplinary authorities; (2) failed to take any action on his client’s behalf, to respond to his client’s requests for information, to state the rate or basis of his fee in writing, to return the fee on request, and to respond to the inquiries of disciplinary authorities; and (3) neglected his client’s adoption case and failed to communicate with his client and failed to respond to the inquiries of disciplinary authorities. In the fourth disciplinary proceeding, Landfield neglected his clients’ adoption proceeding, failed to respond to their telephone inquiries regarding the status of the matter, and after the clients retained new counsel, failed to return their $500 retainer fee on request.
In re J. Coury MacDonald. Bar No. 426895. December 19, 2007. In a reciprocal matter from Virginia, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose functionally equivalent reciprocal discipline and disbar MacDonald, effective immediately. The Virginia State Disciplinary Board issued an order revoking MacDonald’s license to practice law based on findings that he violated Virginia Rules pertaining to diligence, communication, safekeeping property, declining or terminating representation, unauthorized practice of law and criminal conduct in connection with his neglect and abandonment of several client matters, theft of entrusted funds, and practice of law while administratively suspended.
In re Victor Mba-Jonas. Bar No. 452042. December 21, 2007. In a reciprocal matter from Maryland, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose functionally equivalent reciprocal discipline and suspend Mba-Jonas for 90 days with fitness, but grant him permission to move to vacate the fitness requirement if he is summarily reinstated in Maryland without objection from the Maryland Bar Counsel. The board recommends that Mba-Jonas’s suspension be deemed to commence, for purposes of reinstatement, on June 26, 2007, provided that within 30 days after the date of this report he files a notarized properly sworn affidavit supplementing his previously filed D.C. Bar Rule XI section 14(g) affidavit. The Court of Appeals of Maryland indefinitely suspended Mba-Jonas with the right to apply for readmission in 90 days. The Maryland court found that Mba-Jonas failed to use funds for the benefit of the person intended, and that he engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, which was determined by the way he handled his escrow account.
In re Robert Allen Sapero. Bar No. 186775. December 19, 2007. In a reciprocal matter from Maryland, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose functionally equivalent reciprocal discipline and publicly censure Sapero. The Court of Appeals of Maryland publicly reprimanded Sapero, stemming from his failure to provide a settlement sheet to his clients at the time of settlement of their personal injury action; his failure to remove earned fees from his trust account between 1991 and 2005, thereby commingling his own funds with those of his clients; and his failure to provide a written response to Maryland Bar Counsel’s request for information.
In re William M. Sawyer. Bar No. 162388. December 20, 2007. In a reciprocal matter from Kentucky, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose identical reciprocal discipline and suspend Sawyer for three years with fitness. The Supreme Court of Kentucky suspended Sawyer based on his guilty plea to criminal charges of possession of cocaine, possession of a prescription drug not in its original container, and possession of drug paraphernalia.
In re Fritz H. Schneider. Bar No. 391941. December 4, 2007. In a reciprocal matter from Maryland, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose identical reciprocal discipline and disbar Schneider. The Court of Appeals of Maryland disbarred Schneider by consent. In a Joint Petition for Disbarment by Consent filed with the Maryland court, Schneider acknowledged that if a hearing was held, sufficient evidence could be produced to sustain allegations that he failed to file a complaint in a personal injury matter within the statute of limitations, and that as a result, his client’s case was dismissed. Schneider further acknowledged in the Joint Petition that in an attempt to conceal his error, he misrepresented to his client that the case had settled for $25,000 and then paid $19,000 of his personal funds to the client as part of a scheme to misrepresent that the case had settled.
In re Andrew M. Steinberg. Bar No. 350983. December 21, 2007. In a reciprocal matter from Maryland, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose identical reciprocal discipline and disbar Steinberg. The Court of Appeals of Maryland disbarred Steinberg pertaining to his representations in two matters. Steinberg violated Maryland Rules pertaining to competence; scope of representation; diligence and promptness; compliance with client’s reasonable requests for information and communication with client; unreasonable fee; failure to place contingency fee agreement in writing; prohibition against entering agreement with client that limits lawyer’s liability for professional negligence unless the client is represented independently; duty to withdraw upon discharge; reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interest of the client; candor toward tribunal; knowingly disobeying obligation under the rules of a tribunal; in a pretrial procedure, failure to make reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request; false statements of material fact to third persons; failure to respond to request of Bar Counsel; conduct that is dishonest, fraudulent, deceitful, or which constitutes a material misrepresentation; and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
In re Henry J. Uscinski. Bar No. 412779. December 10, 2007. In a reciprocal matter from New York, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose substantially different reciprocal discipline and disbar Uscinski. The Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department suspended Uscinski for five years, with the equivalent of a fitness requirement. The findings of misconduct by the New York court are based on the facts underlying Uscinski’s conviction of tax evasion.
In re David P. Weaver Jr. Bar No. 427688. December 18, 2007. In a reciprocal matter from California, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose functionally equivalent reciprocal discipline and suspend Weaver for five years with fitness. The Supreme Court of California accepted Weaver’s voluntary resignation from the California Bar, while disciplinary proceedings based on his criminal conviction were pending. Weaver was convicted in the Santa Clara County California Superior Court of the felony crime of conspiracy to commit the unauthorized practice of law in violation of California Business and Professions Code section 6126(a).
In re Charles E. Whitehurst. Bar No. 257618. In a reciprocal matter from Delaware, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose functionally equivalent reciprocal discipline and publicly censure Whitehurst. The Supreme Court of Delaware publicly reprimanded Whitehurst, placing him on a two-year probation and imposing other conditions, including compliance with audits of his firm’s accounts. Based upon stipulations between Whitehurst and the Delaware Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Whitehurst violated Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct pertaining to failure to deliver funds promptly to a third party, failure to satisfy record-keeping requirements, failure to supervise nonlawyer assistants, and two counts of engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Disciplinary Actions Taken by the District of Columbia Court of
In re Janice L. Booker. Bar No. 332957. January 17, 2008. The D.C. Court of Appeals disbarred Booker by consent, effective 30 days from the date of the order.
In re W. Eric Cloud. Bar No. 303008. December 28, 2008. The D.C. Court of Appeals disbarred Cloud, effective 30 days from the date of the opinion. Cloud, who was retained in a worker’s compensation/personal injury matter, engaged in reckless misappropriation of settlement funds when he failed to pay a third-party lienholder in a timely manner after his client’s settlement with her employer’s insurance carrier, the lienholder, was approved. (Rule 1.15).
In re Michael A. Romansky. Bar No. 942169. December 20, 2007. After a remand from the Board on Professional Responsibility, the D.C. Court of Appeals suspended Romansky for 30 days for two violations of Rule 8.4(c). Romansky directed an associate attorney in his firm to charge time spent working on a matter for Romansky’s father to another firm client who paid a fixed annual retainer for legal services. In addition, Romansky engaged in dishonesty when he submitted to his firm, in the course of an internal investigation, a purported client letter of recommendation that he had written, but which the client had not approved and had expressly instructed him not to use. One judge writing separately dissented with respect to sanction and would impose a sanction of a 60-day suspension.
In re Jason S. Guetzkow. Bar No. 490926. January 24, 2008. In a reciprocal matter from California, the D.C. Court of Appeals imposed identical reciprocal discipline and suspended Guetzkow for one year, stayed in favor or a 90-day suspension followed by two years of probation under the terms and conditions set by the California Supreme Court in its order of December 12, 2006. The California Supreme Court suspended Guetzkow due to his substandard representation of several clients. In particular, Guetzkow failed to respond to client inquiries, relocated his office without informing clients, failed to take reasonable steps to avoid prejudice to clients upon termination of the representation, failed to return client property, failed to provide competent representation, and failed to cooperate with ongoing disciplinary investigations.
In re John L. Hill. Bar No. 439358. January 24, 2008. In a reciprocal matter from Maryland, the D.C. Court of Appeals imposed identical reciprocal discipline and suspended Hill for 30 days. The Court of Appeals of Maryland suspended Hill for 30 days for neglecting client matters and creating and filing documents without his client’s knowledge or permission. Hill also did not cooperate with Maryland Bar authorities in investigating subsequent complaints.
In re Alfred A. Page Jr. Bar No. 480892. December 20, 2007. In a reciprocal matter from Maryland, the D.C. Court of Appeals imposed functionally identical reciprocal discipline and publicly censured Page. In addition, the court ordered that Page be placed on a two-year period of probation under the supervision of a practice monitor to be appointed by the Board on Professional Responsibility on the terms imposed by the Maryland Court of Appeals. The court also ordered that Page shall, within 30 days, provide Bar Counsel with copies of prior reports of the Maryland practice monitor, and that his failure to comply with this requirement may subject him to further discipline upon motion by the board. Maryland Court of Appeals, pursuant to a Joint Petition for Reprimand by Consent, reprimanded Page and ordered that he submit to a practice and escrow monitor for two years, with the monitor making monthly reports to the Office of Bar Counsel for the first six months and quarterly reports thereafter for the rest of the two-year period. In the joint petition, Page acknowledged that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the charges of failure to communicate with his client, failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in that representation, failure to keep complete records of the monies received, such that Page could not identify the account into which he deposited the client’s retainer, and failure to respond to inquiries by the Maryland Office of Bar Counsel in a timely manner.
In re Keith A. Rosenberg. Bar No. 215160. January 3, 2008. In a reciprocal matter from Maryland, the D.C. Court of Appeals imposed identical reciprocal discipline and indefinitely suspended Rosenberg, nunc pro tunc from May 18, 2006, and held that he may apply for reinstatement after he is reinstated in Maryland, or after five years, whichever occurs first. The Maryland Court of Appeals indefinitely suspended Rosenberg from the practice of law and entered judgment against him for costs in the amount of $1,200 for disciplinary violations based on a Joint Petition for Indefinite Suspension by Consent in which he acknowledged that if a hearing were held, sufficient evidence could be produced to sustain the charges of committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer; engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
In re Malcolm B. Wittenberg. Bar No. 187674. January 31, 2008. In a reciprocal matter from Virginia, the D.C. Court of Appeals imposed functionally equivalent reciprocal discipline and disbarred Wittenberg. The Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board revoked Wittenberg’s license based on his conviction in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to insider trading, a felony which involved the use of confidential information to profit financially, in breach of his fiduciary obligation to his client.
Informal Admonitions Issued by the Office of Bar Counsel
In re Charles G. Brown III. Bar No. 930248. November 1, 2007. Bar Counsel issued Brown an informal admonition for filing a frivolous lawsuit in Arizona against a certain defendant in an underlying civil action. (Arizona Ethics Rule 3.1 as made applicable by D.C. Bar Rule 8.5(b)).
In re Edward C. Bou. Bar No. 37713. December 20, 2007. Bar Counsel issued Bou informal admonition for failing to provide competent representation, failing to serve a client with the skill and care commensurate with that generally afforded to clients by other lawyers in similar matters, failing to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and explain the matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions about the representation, and failing to communicate the basis or rate of the attorney fee in writing while representing a client in a child custody matter. (Rules 1.1(a), 1.1(b), 1.4(a), 1.4(b), 1.5(b)).
In re Bradley S. Cohen. Bar No. 446878. November 1, 2007. Bar Counsel
issued Cohen an informal admonition. Cohen, while serving as a court-appointed
successor guardian for the estate of two minors, failed to file the
required accounting with the court and maintain an updated address with
the court and interested parties. (Rules 1.1, 1.3(a), and 8.4(d)).
In re Randy McRae. Bar No. 430494. January 2, 2008. Bar Counsel issued McRae an informal admonition for delegating all responsibility for communicating with the clients to his legal assistant, failing to take timely steps to protect the clients’ interests, and failing to properly supervise his nonlawyer assistant. (Rules 1.4(a), 1.4(b), 1.16(d), and 5.3(b)).
In re Randy McRae. Bar No. 430494. January 2, 2008. Bar Counsel issued McRae and informal admonition for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and failing to indicate on his letterhead, retainer agreement, and business cards that he was not licensed to practice law in Maryland and only licensed to practice law in the District of Columbia. (Rules 5.5(b), 7.1(a)(1), and 7.5(a)).
In re Kenneth N. Page. Bar No. 448437. January 11, 2007. Bar Counsel issued Page an informal admonition for holding himself out as an attorney licensed in the District of Columbia and utilizing letterhead identifying himself as being admitted to practice law in the District of Columbia, when he was administratively suspended for nonpayment of Bar dues. (Rules 7.1(a) and 7.5).
In re Donald M. Temple. Bar No. 408749. December 20, 2007. Bar Counsel
issued Temple an informal admonition for failing to file a timely notice
of appeal, while representing a client in a malpractice matter. (Rules
1.1, 1.3(a), and 1.3(c)).
In re Robert N. Vohra. Bar No. 426365. December 27, 2007. Bar Counsel issued Vohra an informal admonition for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in Virginia, while representing a client in a business matter. (Rule 5.5(a)).
The Office of Bar Counsel compiled the foregoing summaries of disciplinary
actions. Informal Admonitions issued by Bar Counsel and Reports and
Recommendations issued by the Board on Professional Responsibility are
posted on the D.C. Bar Web site at www.dcbar.org/discipline/reports.html.
Most board recommendations as to discipline are not final until considered
by the court. Court opinions are printed in the Atlantic Reporter and
also are available online for decisions issued since mid-1998. To obtain
a copy of a recent slip opinion, visit www.dcappeals.gov/dccourts/appeals/