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-768
IN RE CAROLYN MARDIS, RESPONDENT.
A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
(Bar Registration No. 974417)
On Report and Recommendation
Of the Board on Professional Responsibility
(DDN 540-09 & DDN 557-09)
(Decided December 14, 2017)
Before FISHER and EASTERLY, Associate Judges, and NEBEKER, Senior
Judge.
PER CURIAM: In this case, the Board on Professional Responsibility has
adopted Hearing Committee Four’s uncontested findings that respondent Carolyn
Mardis violated the Rules of Professional Conduct in two separate unrelated
matters that were consolidated for resolution. In the first matter, the Board
accepted the Committee’s findings that Ms. Mardis (1) conspired with others in a
fraudulent scheme to unlawfully obtain the title to a property that was subject to a
2
tax sale and thereafter took possession of the owner’s personal property; (2) when
contacted by the owner, provided a false name, demanded payment as a condition
for returning the property, and transferred some of the property to an auction house
for sale; and (3) made misrepresentations to her law firm in an attempt to hide her
actions and falsely testified under oath after she was sued by the owner of the
property. In the second matter, the Board accepted the undisputed findings of the
Committee that Ms. Mardis failed to inform a client of her fee or the scope of her
representation and then commingled the advance fee without her client’s consent.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Board accepted the Committee’s
rejection of Ms. Mardis’s proffer of mitigating evidence pursuant to In re Kersey,
520 A.2d 321 (D.C. 1987).
In light of this record, the Board recommends that this court determine that
Ms. Mardis violated District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5 (b),
1.15 (a), 1.7 (b)(4), 3.3 (a), 8.1 (a), 8.4 (b), 8.4 (c) and 8.4 (d). The Board further
recommends that Ms. Mardis be disbarred from the practice of law. Neither Ms.
Mardis nor Disciplinary Counsel has filed an exception to the Board’s Report and
Recommendations.
3
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 discern no reason to depart from the Board’s
recommendations, particularly in light of the Board’s findings that Ms. Mardis
engaged in fraud, committed theft, and then proffered perjured testimony. These
findings justify the discipline recommended by the Board. See, e.g., In re Coles,
912 A.2d 1168 (D.C. 2006) (disbarment for fraud); In re Tillerson, 878 A.2d 1186
(D.C. 2005) (disbarment for first-degree theft).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Carolyn Mardis is hereby disbarred from the practice of law
in the District of Columbia. For the purposes of reinstatement Ms. Mardis’s period
of disbarment will not begin to run until such time as she files an affidavit that
fully complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g).
4
So ordered.