Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves the disbarment of a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, who pled guilty to a federal offense related to facilitating drug trafficking, specifically the attempted possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute. The attorney, motivated by financial benefit, assisted in the logistics of transporting cocaine, which involved coordinating with a person he believed to be his client's wife. His actions led to a conviction for violating 21 U.S.C. 843(b), considered a crime of moral turpitude under D.C. Code 11-2503(a). The Board on Professional Responsibility referred the case to a Hearing Committee, which found substantial evidence of moral turpitude, recommending disbarment. The court upheld this recommendation, referencing the attorney's guilty plea as conclusive evidence in disciplinary proceedings under D.C. Bar Rule XI. 10(f). The attorney's defenses were rejected, with the court affirming that his conduct breached Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(3), undermining his professional integrity. While the Board did not address reciprocal discipline from other jurisdictions, the focus remained on the moral turpitude involved in his actions, resulting in his disbarment from the District of Columbia Bar.
Legal Issues Addressed
Conclusive Evidence in Disciplinary Actionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The attorney's guilty plea was deemed conclusive evidence of the crime in the disciplinary proceedings, in accordance with D.C. Bar Rule XI. 10(f).
Reasoning: Under D.C. Bar Rule XI. 10(f), a guilty plea by an attorney is conclusive evidence of the associated crime in disciplinary actions.
Disbarment for Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitudesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the disbarment of an attorney convicted of a drug-related offense, citing the involvement of moral turpitude under D.C. Code 11-2503(a).
Reasoning: Gerald R. Robbins is recommended for disbarment from the District of Columbia Bar due to his conviction for a drug-related offense, which constitutes a crime of moral turpitude under D.C. Code 11-2503(a).
Disciplinary Rule Violations and Professional Integritysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The attorney's illegal conduct violated Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(3) due to its negative impact on professional integrity.
Reasoning: His illegal conduct, which occurred during his representation of Baez, violated Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(3) due to its adverse implications on his professional integrity.
Moral Turpitude Definition in Legal Contextsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court defined moral turpitude as acts contrary to accepted moral standards and societal duties, confirming its presence in the attorney's conduct.
Reasoning: The definition of moral turpitude was clarified, highlighting acts contrary to accepted moral standards and societal duties.