In re Rosenbaum ( 2021 )

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. 21-BG-477
IN RE JOHN E. ROSENBAUM, RESPONDENT.
A Member of the Bar of the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
(Bar Registration No. 457617)
On Report and Recommendation
of the Board on Professional Responsibility
(BDN 3-20)
(Decided October 28, 2021)
Before EASTERLY and MCLEESE, Associate Judges, and FISHER, Senior Judge.
PER CURIAM: The Ad Hoc Hearing Committee issued a Report and
Recommendation concluding that respondent John E. Rosenbaum had committed
numerous disciplinary violations, including intentional misappropriation of
entrusted funds, and recommending that Mr. Rosenbaum be disbarred, with
reinstatement conditioned on the payment of restitution of $100,000. See generally
In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190, 191 (D.C. 1990) (en banc) (disbarment is presumptive
sanction in cases of intentional misappropriation). Specifically, the Hearing
Committee found that, while acting as a fiduciary in an estate matter in Pennsylvania,
2
Mr. Rosenbaum intentionally misappropriated entrusted funds, charged excessive
fees, failed to respond to inquiries for information from the heirs, and interfered with
the administration of justice.
Mr. Rosenbaum filed exceptions to the Hearing Committee’s Report but did
not specifically challenge any of the Report’s findings or recommended sanctions.
Rather, Mr. Rosenbaum informed the Board on Professional Responsibility that he
had entered into a negotiated disciplinary agreement with the California Disciplinary
Counsel based on the conduct at issue in this case. That agreement called for
imposition of a three-year suspension, with all but eighteen months stayed subject
to conditions, including restitution of over $100,000. Mr. Rosenbaum argued that
the Board should defer this disciplinary matter until the California negotiated
disciplinary agreement became final, and the Board should then impose reciprocal
discipline.
The Board issued a Report and Recommendation adopting the Hearing
Committee’s Report. In rejecting Mr. Rosenbaum’s argument that the Board should
defer this matter and then impose reciprocal discipline, the Board noted that the
California negotiated discipline agreement had not been reached until after the
3
Hearing Committee had held a hearing. In those circumstances, the Board
explained, this jurisdiction could appropriately impose original discipline rather than
reciprocal discipline. In re Cerroni, 683 A.2d 150, 151 (D.C. 1996) (per curiam);
In re Perrin, 663 A.2d 517, 522-23 (D.C. 1995).
Mr. Rosenbaum did not file exceptions to the Board’s Report and
Recommendation. 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 are satisfied that the
record supports the Board’s Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that respondent John E. Rosenbaum is hereby disbarred from the
practice of law in this jurisdiction. As a condition of reinstatement, Mr. Rosenbaum
4
shall pay restitution in the amount of $100,000, with statutory interest. We further
direct Mr. Rosenbaum’s attention to the requirements of D.C. Bar R. IX, § 14, and
their effect on his eligibility for reinstatement. See D.C. Bar R. IX, § 16(c).