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. 16-BG-1246
IN RE PETER N. NJANG, RESPONDENT.
A Suspended Member of the Bar
of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
(Bar Registration No. 456012)
On Report and Recommendation
of the Board on Professional Responsibility
(BDN 123-10 et al.)
(Decided June 11, 2020)
Before THOMPSON, MCLEESE, and DEAHL, Associate Judges.
PER CURIAM: The Ad Hoc Hearing Committee issued a report concluding that
respondent Peter N. Njang intentionally misappropriated entrusted funds.
Specifically, the Hearing Committee found that respondent received client funds as
the result of successful litigation and failed to accurately account for the funds,
resulting in an overdraft of his IOLTA account when his client attempted to deposit
a check representing the client’s share of funds from the litigation. The Committee
recommended that respondent be disbarred. Respondent did not file exceptions to
the Committee’s report. The Board on Professional Responsibility adopted the
2
Committee’s findings that respondent intentionally misappropriated entrusted funds
in violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15(a) and concurred that respondent
should be disbarred. Respondent did not file exceptions to the Board’s report and
recommendation. Because the Board found that respondent’s misappropriation was
intentional, the Board’s recommended sanction of disbarment is the presumptively
mandatory disposition. 1
Under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(h)(2), “if no exceptions are filed to the Board’s
report, the [c]ourt will enter an order imposing the discipline recommended by the
Board upon the expiration of the time permitted for filing exceptions.” See also In
re Viehe, 762 A.2d 542, 543 (D.C. 2000) (“When . . . there are no exceptions to the
Board’s report and recommendation, our deferential standard of review becomes
even more deferential.”). We are satisfied that the record supports the determination
that respondent engaged in intentional misappropriation of entrusted funds. We
accept the recommendation that respondent be disbarred.
Accordingly, it is
1
See, e.g., In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190 (D.C. 1990) (en banc) (disbarment is
presumptive discipline for all but negligent misappropriation).
3
ORDERED that respondent Peter N. Njang is hereby disbarred. For purposes
of reinstatement, the period of respondent’s disbarment will not begin to run until
such time as he files a D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit.