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. 18-BG-1091
IN RE BRIAN S. BROWN, RESPONDENT.
A Member of the Bar
of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
(Bar Registration No. 399542)
On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional
Responsibility Hearing Committee Number Four
Approving Amended Petition for Negotiated Discipline
(BDN 386-14)
(Decided: January 24, 2019)
Before GLICKMAN and FISHER, Associate Judges, and FERREN, 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PER CURIAM: This decision is non-precedential.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.
2
In this disciplinary matter, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board
on Professional Responsibility Hearing Committee Number Four (the Committee)
recommends approval of an amended petition for negotiated attorney discipline.
Respondent Brian S. Brown’s professional misconduct was the result of his
intentional failure to pursue his clients’ lawful objectives or communicate or
reasonably inform them of the status of a judgment.
Respondent acknowledged that he (1) failed to serve a client with skill and
care; (2) failed to zealously and diligently represent a client; (3) intentionally failed
to pursue clients’ lawful objectives; (4) failed to keep clients reasonably informed;
and (5) failed to explain matters to a client, thereby violating Rule 1.1 (b), 1.3 (a),
1.3 (b)(1), 1.4 (a), and 1.4 (b) of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional
Conduct. As a result, Disciplinary Counsel and respondent negotiated the
imposition of discipline in the form of a thirty-day suspension stayed in favor of six
months of unsupervised probation. The probation is conditioned on respondent
consulting with the D.C. Bar Practice Management Advisory Service about his
firm’s case management system and providing Disciplinary Counsel with written
confirmation of such consultation within the first thirty days of the probationary
3
period. Further, respondent shall not engage in any misconduct in this or any
jurisdiction. If Disciplinary Counsel has probable cause to believe respondent
violated the terms of the probation, Disciplinary Counsel may seek to revoke
respondent’s probation, see D.C. Bar R. XI, § 3 and D.C. Board R. 18.3, and request
respondent to serve his entire suspension. Additionally, respondent agrees that if
probation is revoked and his suspension imposed he must file a D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14
(g) affidavit with this court in order for his suspension to be deemed effective for
purposes of reinstatement and must demonstrate fitness prior to reinstatement. After
reviewing the amended petition for negotiated discipline, considering a supporting
affidavit, and conducting a limited hearing, the Committee concluded that the
revised 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 in favor of six months of
4
unsupervised probation is not unduly lenient 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
that this case is appropriate for negotiated discipline, and we accept the Committee’s
recommendation. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Brian S. Brown is hereby suspended from the practice of law
in the District of Columbia for thirty days stayed in favor of six months of
unsupervised probation. During the probation period respondent shall consult with
the D.C. Bar Practice Management Advisory Service about his firm’s case
management system and provide Disciplinary Counsel with written confirmation of
1
See generally In re Schoeneman, 891 A.2d 279 (D.C. 2006) (imposing a four-
month suspension for an attorney who neglected three clients in federal court for
over a two-year period, misled the clients about the status of their cases, and engaged
in the unauthorized practice of law by concealing his suspension from the practice
of law from his clients); In re Dunietz, 687 A.2d 206 (D.C. 1996) (concluding a
thirty-day suspension, with a stay conditioned upon satisfactory completion of
probation, 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); see also In re Hallmark, 831 A.2d 366, 371 (D.C.
2003) (reiterating if the recommended sanction falls within a
wide range of acceptable outcomes this court generally adopts and imposes the
recommended discipline).
5
such consultation within the first thirty days of the probationary period and not
engage in any misconduct in this or any jurisdiction. If Disciplinary Counsel has
probable cause to believe respondent violated the terms of the probation,
Disciplinary Counsel may seek to revoke respondent’s probation, see D.C. Bar R.
XI, § 3 and D.C. Board R. 18.3, and request respondent to serve his entire
suspension. Additionally, respondent agrees that if probation is revoked and his
suspension imposed he must file a D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit with this court
in order for his suspension to be deemed effective for purposes of reinstatement and
must demonstrate fitness prior to reinstatement.
So ordered.