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-661 8/25/16
IN RE ANTOINI M. JONES, RESPONDENT.
A Member of the Bar
of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
(Bar Registration No. 428159)
On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional
Responsibility Hearing Committee Number Seven
Approving Petition for Negotiated Discipline
(BDN D311-10 & D103-11)
(Decided: August 25, 2016)
Before BECKWITH 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PER CURIAM: This decision is non-precedential.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 Hearing Committee Number Seven (“the
Committee”) recommends approval of a revised petition for negotiated attorney
discipline. The violations stem from respondent Antoini M. Jones’s professional
2
misconduct arising from his representation of two clients in two separate civil
actions.
Respondent acknowledged that he failed to (1) provide competent
representation; (2) act with reasonable promptness; and (3) communicate with his
clients, thereby violating Rules 1.1 (a) & (b), 1.3 (c), and 1.4 (a) of the District of
Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct. The Committee considered the
following circumstances in mitigation: (1) respondent cooperated with Bar
Counsel; (2) respondent took full responsibility and demonstrated remorse for his
actions; (3) respondent’s family situation; and (4) one client’s personal conduct
affected respondent’s ability to represent that client. The Committee also reviewed
respondent’s four previous informal admonitions, two of which involved
misconduct sounding in neglect. As a result, Disciplinary Counsel and respondent
negotiated the imposition of discipline in the form of a ninety-day suspension,
stayed, and one year of probation during which respondent must (1) meet with and
obtain an assessment from the District of Columbia Bar’s Practice Management
Advisory Service (“PMAS”) and comply with and implement any PMAS
recommendation, including the supervision of a practice monitor; (2) not be found
to have engaged in any additional ethical misconduct; and (3) complete his
financial obligations to one complainant. After reviewing the revised petition for
3
negotiated discipline, considering a supporting affidavit and an unsworn letter from
one of the complainants, 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 ninety-day suspension from the practice of law, stayed, and one year
of probation with the conditions set forth above is not unduly lenient considering
the existence of mitigating factors and the discipline imposed by this court for
similar actions.1
1
See In re Mance, 869 A.2d 339, 341-43 (D.C. 2005) (per curiam)
(imposing thirty-day suspension, with suspension conditionally stayed during one-
year period of unsupervised probation with requirement that attorney attend six
hours of continuing legal education courses in legal ethics and law-office
management, as disciplinary sanction for attorney’s neglect of client’s criminal
appeal, where attorney had two prior informal admonitions); In re Douglass, 859
A.2d 1069, 1072-87 (D.C. 2004) (per curiam) (suspending for ninety days attorney
who had two prior informal admonitions and presented no significant mitigating
factors, where attorney failed to prepare or pursue client’s case and then attempted
to prevent client from seeking refund of attorney’s fees after attorney no longer
represented that client); In re Drew, 693 A.2d 1127, 1127-28 (D.C. 1997) (per
curiam) (imposing sixty-day suspension on attorney who had three prior informal
admonitions in similar cases where attorney failed to note appeal for client
following criminal conviction and failed to note appeal or file motion to modify a
sentence for another client); In re Knox, 441 A.2d 265, 266-68 (D.C. 1982)
(continued…)
4
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 Antoini M. Jones is hereby suspended from the practice of
law in the District of Columbia for ninety days, stayed in favor of one year of
probation during which respondent must (1) meet with and obtain an assessment
from the District of Columbia Bar’s PMAS and comply with and implement any
PMAS recommendation, including the supervision of a practice monitor; (2) not be
found to have engaged in any additional ethical misconduct; and (3) complete his
financial obligations to one complainant.
So ordered.
(…continued)
(imposing ninety-day suspension after attorney failed to take any action before
statute of limitations expired and did not communicate with client about decision
not to pursue claim).