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. 15-BG-851
IN RE ATHANASIOS BASDEKIS, RESPONDENT
A Member of the Bar
of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
(Bar Registration No. 463692)
On Report and Recommendation of Hearing Committee Number Nine
Approving Petition for Negotiated Discipline
(BDN D85-06)
(Decided: November 12, 2015)
Before GLICKMAN and FISHER, Associate Judges, and NEBEKER, Senior
Judge.
2
PER CURIAM: This decision is issued as non-precedential. Please refer to D.C. Bar
R. XI, § 12.1 (d) governing the appropriate citation of this opinion.
In this disciplinary matter, Hearing Committee Number Nine (“Committee”)
recommends approval of a petition for negotiated attorney discipline. The
violations stem from respondent Athanasios Basedekis’s neglect of six clients that
occurred from 2002 to 2006.
Based upon respondent’s recognition that he neglected client matters, he
admittedly violated seven rules of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional
Conduct over that period. These violations all stemmed from respondent’s alcohol
dependence, and therefore, the parties stipulated that respondent satisfied his
burden of proof and he met the factors required to mitigate his sanction. See In re
Kersey, 520 A.2d 321 (D.C. 1987) (holding that alcoholism is a mitigating factor to
be considered in determining discipline and identifying factors the court should
consider when evaluating the appropriateness of the recommended discipline in
disciplinary cases involving alcoholism). Additionally, the Committee considered
respondent’s subsequent efforts to address his alcohol dependence and his
cooperation with Bar Counsel as additional mitigating factors, which included
3
participation in an independent medical examination to assess his recovery from
alcohol abuse and ability to practice law. The parties stipulate respondent has been
substantially rehabilitated after receiving treatment for alcoholism since 2011,
poses no current risk to his clients; and that he is not a recidivist risk while he
continues to manage his disorders through Alcoholics Anonymous (“AA”) and
periodic counseling and continues to work in a well-staffed and automated work
environment. As a result, Bar Counsel and respondent negotiated the imposition of
discipline in the form of a four-month suspension, stayed in favor of an eighteen-
month period of unsupervised probation with conditions. If Bar Counsel has
probable cause to believe respondent violated any of the terms of his probation, he
may seek revocation of probation. Further, if respondent changes employment and
the parties cannot agree on any additional condition necessary to prevent a relapse,
Bar Counsel may move to modify probation to include an appropriate additional
condition. The Committee reviewed this agreement and concluded, after the
limited hearing on the petition, an in camera review of Bar Counsel’s investigative
files and records, and the amendment to the petition for negotiated discipline, that
the petition for negotiated discipline should be approved.
We accept the Committee’s recommendation because it properly applied
D.C. Bar R. XI § 12.1 (c) to arrive at this conclusion, and we find no error in the
4
Committee’s determination. Furthermore, the Committee considered respondent’s
alcohol dependence, which led to his misconduct, as a mitigating circumstance
pursuant to In re Kersey, respondent taking responsibility for his actions, and his
full cooperation with Bar Counsel. The Committee also considered that, in the
nine years since the time period in question, respondent has achieved success in a
different practice setting, and has had no difficulties with his job and no further
disciplinary complaints. Based upon the record before the court, the negotiated
discipline of a four-month suspension from the practice of law suspended in favor
of an unsupervised probationary period of eighteen months is not unduly lenient
and is supported by discipline imposed by this court for similar actions.1
In accordance with our procedures in uncontested disciplinary cases, we
agree this case is appropriate for negotiated discipline, and we accept the
Committee’s recommendation. Accordingly, it is
1
See In re Ryan, 670 A.2d 375 (D.C. 1996) (imposing a four-month suspension
with fitness for intentional neglect of five matters during a two-year period); In re
Kersey, supra (staying a period of suspension in favor of probation based upon
evidence of a disability or addiction that caused the misconduct and proof of
rehabilitation).
5
ORDERED that Athanasios Basdekis is hereby suspended from the practice
of law in the District of Columbia for the period of four months, execution
suspended in favor of an eighteen month period of unsupervised probation subject
to conditions that respondent not be subject to another opened disciplinary action,
and that he continue treatment with his psychiatrist as frequently as his psychiatrist
deems necessary for respondent to practice in compliance with the Rules of
Professional Conduct, resume quarterly one-on-one counseling sessions with a
professional counselor designated in the amendment to the petition for negotiated
discipline, promptly report any change of employment to Bar Counsel to enable
determination of any additional conditions, notify his employer of the terms of
probation, and attend AA meetings on a regular basis during the period of
probation.
So ordered.