Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-BG-1463 IN RE AROON R. PADHARIA, RESPONDENT. A Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 470038) On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility (BDN 238-12) (Decided August 20, 2020) Before FISHER and THOMPSON, Associate Judges, and NEBEKER, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM: In this case, the Board on Professional Responsibility concurred with many of the findings of the Hearing Committee and determined by clear and convincing evidence that respondent had violated Rules 3.4(c), 8.1(b), and 8.4(d) of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct. The Board agreed with the Committee’s recommendation that respondent should be suspended from the 2 practice of law for six months, but it also recommended that a fitness requirement be imposed as a condition of reinstatement. The Board accepted the Committee’s factual findings that Aroon R. Padharia filed thirty separate Petitions for Review of adverse immigration decisions in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit but failed to file briefs in twenty-nine of those cases, although he had sought and obtained extensions of time to do so. After his clients notified him that they did not want to pursue their appeals, respondent failed to notify the court of his clients’ decisions and failed to file motions to dismiss. By doing nothing, he obliged the court to eventually dismiss those appeals for failure to prosecute. The Board adopted the findings of the Committee that respondent violated Rule 3.4(c) by knowingly disobeying his obligations under the rules of a tribunal. Although the Committee concluded that respondent’s routine disregard for court orders and rules in these matters did not seriously interfere with the administration of justice, the Board disagreed and found that respondent’s actions and omissions seriously interfered with the administration of justice and thus violated Rule 8.4(d). 3 See, e.g., In re Murdter, 131 A.3d 355, 357 (D.C. 2016). 1 The Board agreed with the Hearing Committee that respondent violated both Rule 8.4(d) and Rule 8.1(b) by failing timely to respond to the inquiries of Disciplinary Counsel. In considering the appropriate discipline, the Board noted that “Respondent’s conduct did not involve dishonesty, he has no prior discipline, and there is no evidence that any of Respondent’s clients were prejudiced by his conduct.” Nevertheless, it recommended a fitness requirement, finding not merely that clear and convincing evidence raised a serious doubt that respondent would refrain from repeating these violations, 2 but, indeed, clear and convincing evidence that respondent would repeat the same conduct in the future. The Board based its conclusion on: (1) its findings that respondent’s repeated failures to file briefs or comply with court orders during the course of the immigration appeals ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals