In re Yoshihiro Saito , 2014 D.C. App. LEXIS 156 ( 2014 )

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. 13-BG-1401
IN RE YOSHIHIRO SAITO, RESPONDENT.
A Member of the Bar
of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
(Bar Registration No. 351973)
On Report and Recommendation of Hearing Committee Number Eight
Approving Petition for Negotiated Discipline
(BDN D388-03)
(Decided May 8, 2014)
This decision is issued as non-precedential. Please refer to D.C. Bar R. XI,
§ 12.1 (d) governing the appropriate citation of this opinion.
Before BLACKBURNE-RIGSBY and BECKWITH, Associate Judges, and KING,
Senior Judge.
PER CURIAM: In this disciplinary matter, Hearing Committee Number Eight
(“Committee”) recommends approval of a petition for negotiated attorney
discipline. See D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 12.1. Respondent, Yoshihiro Saito, admits to
violating District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4 (c) (“engag[ing]
in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation”). This
violation stems from his representation of an international client and submission of
a questionnaire to the United States Department of Commerce. Specifically,
2
respondent failed to disclose significant alterations to a sales contract, which he
acknowledged the Department of Commerce would view as material facts and the
lack of disclosure tainted the original decision issued in that matter. Respondent
and Bar Counsel have negotiated a one-year suspension based upon the failure to
disclose material facts.
Respondent’s admissions were made voluntarily, with the advice of counsel,
and in connection with a petition for negotiated discipline filed by Bar Counsel on
January 2, 2013.1 The matter was referred to Hearing Committee Number Eight,
where respondent admitted to both the stipulated facts contained in the petition and
his own supporting affidavit, and admitted that his actions constituted violations of
the aforementioned Rule of Professional Conduct. In addition, respondent
consented to the sanction agreed upon with Bar Counsel. Respondent confirmed
that he was entering into the disposition freely and voluntarily and not as the result
of any coercion or duress.2 The Committee concluded, after a limited hearing on
the petition, conducting two separate in camera reviews of Bar Counsel’s
1
See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1 (c); Bd. Prof. Resp. R. 17.5.
2
Id.
3
investigative files and records, and two ex parte meetings with Assistant Bar
Counsel, that respondent violated Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4 (c).
We agree with the Committee’s recommendation because it properly applied
D.C. Bar XI 12.1 (c) to arrive at this conclusion and we find no error in the
Committee’s determination. Furthermore, the Committee considered the
aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the disciplinary events including Bar
Counsel’s concession that “it was less than diligent” in investigating this case, and
the fact that respondent had no prior or subsequent disciplinary history and found
that the negotiated discipline – a one-year suspension – was not unduly lenient and
falls within the range of discipline imposed for similar actions.3
3
See In re Belardi, 891 A.2d 224 (D.C. 2006) (imposing a one-year
suspension following respondent’s guilty plea to three counts of making false
statements to the Federal Communications Commission); In re Cerroni, 683 A.2d
150 (D.C. 1996) (following a finding that conduct did not amount to moral
turpitude per se, court suspended respondent for one year for knowingly making
false statements and reports to the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development and the Federal Housing Administration.); In re Thompson, 538 A.2d
247 (D.C. 1987) (imposing a one-year suspension upon the respondent for
knowingly assisting in the presentation of false statements to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service).
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 Yoshihiro Saito is suspended from the practice of law in the
District of Columbia for the period of one year. We direct respondent’s attention
to the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) and its effect on his eligibility for
reinstatement. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16 (c).
So ordered.