In re Osemene ( 2022 )

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. 22-BG-398
IN RE AZUBUIKE AKUBUEZE OSEMENE, RESPONDENT.
A Member of the Bar
of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
(Bar Registration No. 496245)
On Report and Recommendation
of the Board on Professional Responsibility
(DDN 101-17; BDN 18-105)
(Decided July 14, 2022)
Before MCLEESE and DEAHL, Associate Judges, and WASHINGTON, Senior
Judge.
PER CURIAM: The Ad Hoc Hearing Committee concluded that respondent
Azubuike Akubueze Osemene violated District of Columbia Rules of Professional
Conduct 1.5(b) and 1.6(a) and engaged in dishonesty during disciplinary
proceedings. Specifically, the Committee found by clear and convincing evidence
that respondent failed to provide his client with a written agreement detailing his fee
or the scope of representation, despite his client’s request for such a written
statement. It also found that respondent improperly disclosed confidential client
information in his motion to withdraw. The Committee recommended that
2
respondent be publicly censured. The Board on Professional Responsibility
accepted the Committee’s findings and recommendation. Neither respondent nor
Disciplinary Counsel filed an exception 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 In re
Viehe, 762 A.2d 542, 543 (D.C. 2000) (per curiam) (“When . . . there are no
exceptions to the Board’s report and recommendation, our deferential standard of
review becomes even more deferential.”). We see no reason to disregard the Board’s
conclusions and recommended sanction. See In re Ponds, 876 A.2d 636, 636-37
(D.C. 2005) (imposing public censure for “improperly disclosing confidential
information in a motion to withdraw as defense counsel for a client”); see also In re
Szymkowicz, 124 A.3d 1078, 1088 (D.C. 2015) (“[W]e accept the Board's
recommendation that the Rule 1.5(b) violation by itself would warrant an informal
admonition.” (emphasis added)).
Accordingly, it is
3
ORDERED that respondent Azubuike Akubueze Osemene is hereby publicly
censured.