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-436
IN RE BERNARD C. COLEMAN, JR., RESPONDENT.
A Member of the Bar
of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
(Bar Registration No. 437011)
On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility
Ad Hoc Hearing Committee
Approving Petition for Negotiated Discipline
(DDN 151-15)
(Decided: June 29, 2017)
Before GLICKMAN and MCLEESE, Associate Judges, and FARRELL, Senior
Judge.
PER CURIAM: This decision is non-precedential. Please refer to D.C. Bar R.
XI, § 12.1 (d) governing the appropriate citation of this opinion.
In this disciplinary matter, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board
on Professional Responsibility Ad Hoc Hearing Committee (“the Committee”)
recommends approval of a petition for negotiated attorney discipline. The
2
violations stem from respondent Bernard C. Coleman, Jr.’s professional
misconduct arising from acts or omissions during the course of his representation
of multiple clients in consolidated civil actions.
Respondent acknowledged that, in addition to knowingly revealing
information that would likely be detrimental to his clients, he failed to (1) provide
competent representation and serve his clients with skill and care; (2) zealously
represent his clients; (3) act with reasonable promptness; and (4) communicate
with his clients, thereby violating Rules 1.1 (a) & (b), 1.3 (a) & (c), 1.4 (a) & (b),
and 1.6 (a) of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct. The
Committee considered the following circumstances in mitigation: (1) respondent
provided his clients with his malpractice insurance information; (2) respondent
took full responsibility and demonstrated remorse for his actions; (3) respondent
cooperated with Disciplinary Counsel’s investigation; (4) respondent actively
pursued his clients’ claims; (5) respondent demonstrated no evidence of
dishonesty; and (6) respondent had no prior disciplinary history. As a result,
Disciplinary Counsel and respondent negotiated the imposition of discipline in the
form of a thirty-day suspension, stayed, and one year of supervised probation
during which respondent must (1) contact the District of Columbia Bar’s Practice
Management Advisory Service (“PMAS”) within thirty days from the date of this
3
opinion to schedule an assessment; (2) meet with and obtain an assessment from
PMAS and comply with and implement any PMAS recommendations; (3) provide
PMAS with a signed release waiving confidentiality so PMAS may communicate
with Disciplinary Counsel regarding respondent; (4) attend ten hours of continuing
legal education classes offered by the D.C. Bar that Disciplinary Counsel
preapproves, and submit proof of attendance to Disciplinary Counsel within thirty
days of attendance; and (5) not be the subject of a disciplinary complaint that
results in a finding that he violated the disciplinary rules of any jurisdiction in
which he is licensed to practice. After reviewing the petition for negotiated
discipline, considering a supporting affidavit, and conducting a limited hearing, the
Committee concluded that the petition for negotiated discipline should be
approved.
We accept the Committee’s recommendation because the Committee
properly applied D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1 (c), and we find no error in the
Committee’s determination. Based upon the record before the court, the negotiated
discipline of a thirty-day suspension from the practice of law, stayed, and one year
of supervised probation with the conditions set forth above is not unduly lenient
4
considering the existence of mitigating factors and the 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
ORDERED that Bernard C. Coleman, Jr. be, and hereby is suspended from
the practice of law in the District of Columbia for thirty days, stayed, and is placed
on one year of supervised probation during which respondent must (1) contact the
1
In re Mance, 869 A.2d 339 (D.C. 2005) (suspending an attorney for thirty
days with the suspension conditionally stayed during a one-year probationary
period after the attorney (1) failed to timely pursue a client’s case on appeal or
protect his client’s rights; (2) neglected to move to have his client’s sentence
reduced based on merger; (3) failed to communicate with his client; and (4)
delayed moving to withdraw from the case after the client sought to terminate his
engagement); In re Dunietz, 687 A.2d 206 (D.C. 1996) (concluding a thirty-day
suspension, with a stay conditioned upon satisfactory completion of a two-year
probationary period, was warranted for an attorney, with no prior discipline
history, who neglected a single client by failing to act promptly, pursue the client’s
objectives, and communicate with the client).
5
District of Columbia Bar’s Practice Management Advisory Service (“PMAS”)
within thirty days from the date of this opinion to schedule an assessment; (2) meet
with and obtain an assessment from PMAS and comply with and implement any
PMAS recommendations; (3) provide PMAS with a signed release waiving
confidentiality so PMAS may communicate with Disciplinary Counsel regarding
respondent; (4) attend ten hours of continuing legal education classes offered by
the D.C. Bar that Disciplinary Counsel preapproves and submit proof of attendance
to Disciplinary Counsel within thirty days of attendance; and (5) not be the subject
of a disciplinary complaint that results in a finding that he violated a disciplinary
rule of any jurisdiction in which he is licensed to practice.
So ordered.