 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Roxborough6/7/2001
On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility
Submitted May 24, 2001
Claude W. Roxborough was admitted to the District of Columbia Bar on January 26, 1973. Since that time, he has been the subject of several disciplinary proceedings which are described in detail in the comprehensive and balanced Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility dated March 12, 2001, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. See generally In re Roxborough, 675 A.2d 950 (D.C. 1996) (per curiam) (Roxborough I); In re Roxborough, 692 A.2d 1379 (D.C. 1997) (per curiam) (Roxborough II); In re Roxborough, 707 A.2d 57 (D.C. 1998) (Roxborough III). As reflected in the Board's Report, this court has suspended Roxborough from practice and has conditioned his reinstatement on proof of fitness to practice law.
Roxborough petitioned the court for reinstatement, and his petition was initially considered by Hearing Committee No. One. Before the Committee, Bar Counsel filed proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law suggesting that Roxborough be reinstated with conditions, substantially as noted below. The Hearing Committee likewise recommended reinstatement with conditions. The Board, after carefully applying the five "Roundtree factors," concluded that "this is a close case for reinstatement because of the seriousness of the original misconduct, all of which was related to Petitioner's practice, and the fact that restitution is incomplete." Nevertheless, the Board recommended reinstatement with the following conditions:
1) That Petitioner implement the restitution plan attached to this Report and Recommendation, and report his progress to Bar Counsel every six months;
2) That Petitioner continue his consultation with the Lawyers' Counseling Committee and Lawyers' Practice Assistance Committee for at least three years after reinstatement, and report to Bar Counsel concerning those consultations every six months; and
3) That Petitioner be under the supervision of a practice monitor to be appointed by the Board for one year following Petitioner's entry of private practice. Petitioner shall inform the Board's Executive Attorney 60 days before undertaking private practice so that a practice monitor can be appointed. The practice monitor shall report to the Executive Attorney for the Board every three months.
We agree with the Board's view that Roxborough's misconduct was serious. We are also of the opinion that caution should be exercised in ordering reinstatement where, as in this case, substantial amounts in restitution remain to be paid. Nevertheless, the deference that we accord to the Board's recommendation, D.C. Bar R. XI, ยงยง 9 (g) & 16 (e), is even greater where, as here, the petitioner's position has the active support of the Office of Bar Counsel. See, e.g., In re Goldsborough, 654 A.2d 1285, 1288 (D.C. 1995). Accordingly, Roxborough is hereby reinstated to the practice of law, subject to the conditions described in the Board's report and quoted above.
So ordered.
ATTACHMENT I
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
In the Matter of: CLAUDE ROXBOROUGH, Petitioner.
Bar Docket No. 139-98
(Original Disciplinary Proceedings: No. 96-BG- 1491 Judges Steadman, Ruiz, and Reid No. 95-BG-1710 Judges Terry, Steadman and Schwelb No. 96-BG-1003 Judges Ferren, Terry, and Senior Judge Gallagher)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter arises from the petition by Claude Roxborough to be reinstated to the Bar. Bar Counsel does not object to his
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 District of Columbia Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|