In Re Jay S. Weiss ( 2019 )

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-803
IN RE JAY S. WEISS, RESPONDENT.
An Active Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
(Bar Registration No. 29652)
On Report and Recommendation
of the Board on Professional Responsibility
(DDN 437-12)
(Submitted September 11, 2019 Decided October 17, 2019)
Before BLACKBURNE-RIGSBY, Chief Judge, BECKWITH, Associate Judge, and
WASHINGTON, Senior Judge.
PER CURIAM: The Board on Professional Responsibility adopted the Ad Hoc
Hearing Committee’s finding that respondent, Jay S. Weiss, violated District of
Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(a), 1.1(b), 1.3(a), 1.3(c), 1.4(a),
1.4(b), and 8.4(c), and recommended that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for ninety days. The Committee found that after respondent agreed
to represent his client in a civil dispute, he failed to do any substantive work on the
matter and repeatedly misled his client about the status of the case. In response to
the client’s multiple inquiries into respondent’s progress, respondent consistently
maintained that he was advancing the client’s interests, including stating falsely
2
that a suit on the client’s behalf had been filed. Respondent also told the client that
he secured a $10,000 settlement offer when, in fact, no settlement offer had been
obtained. Respondent further provided false testimony before the Committee in an
attempt to deceive the Committee about his conversations with the client.
Both respondent and Disciplinary Counsel filed exceptions to the Board’s
report, but later submitted a joint motion to withdraw the parties’ exceptions,
which we granted.1 Under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(h)(2), “if no exceptions are filed to
the Board’s report, the Court 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 have reviewed the
record and conclude that the Board’s findings of fact are supported by substantial
evidence of record, and its recommended disposition is warranted. See In re Viehe,
762 A.2d at 543.
1
We also ordered the matter to be submitted for decision, without oral
argument by either party.
3
Accordingly, it is ordered that respondent, Jay S. Weiss, is suspended from
the practice of law in the District of Columbia for ninety days. The period of
respondent’s suspension shall run from the date on which he files the affidavit
required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g). We direct respondent’s attention to the
responsibilities of suspended attorneys set forth in D.C. Bar R. XI, §§ 14 and 16.
So ordered.