In re Dominic G. Vorv , 172 A.3d 911 ( 2017 )

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. 17-BG-1247
IN RE DOMINIC G. VORV, RESPONDENT.
A Member of the Bar
of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
(Bar Registration No. 470139)
On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility
Ad Hoc Hearing Committee
Approving Petition for Negotiated Discipline
(DDN 314-14)
(Decided: November 30, 2017)
Before GLICKMAN and MCLEESE, Associate Judges, and STEADMAN, Senior
Judge.
PER CURIAM: This decision is non-precedential. Please refer to D.C. Bar R.
XI, § 12.1 (d) governing the appropriate citation of this opinion.
In this disciplinary matter, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board
on Professional Responsibility Ad Hoc Hearing Committee (the Committee)
2
recommends approval of a petition for negotiated attorney discipline. The
violations stem from respondent Dominic G. Vorv’s professional misconduct
arising from acts or omissions during the course of his representation of one client
in post-conviction and immigration proceedings. In brief, after the client had
pleaded guilty and been convicted of burglary in the Circuit Court of Fairfax
County, Virginia, the United States Department of Homeland Security instituted
proceedings for his removal on the premise that he had been convicted of an
“aggravated felony” as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act, see 8
U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(43)(G). In attempting to forestall his client’s removal,
respondent made several missteps that jeopardized his client’s rights. First,
respondent petitioned the Virginia Circuit Court to vacate his client’s conviction
and guilty plea based on the mistaken claim that the court had failed to advise his
client about the potential immigration consequences of the conviction. Thereafter,
without consulting his client, respondent dismissed the petition, conceded
removability before the Immigration Court, and did not seek to challenge or delay
his client’s deportation on any other ground. Ultimately, the client retained new
counsel who successfully argued against removal on the ground that the burglary
offense for which he had been convicted was not an “aggravated felony” within the
meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
3
Respondent acknowledged that he (1) failed to provide competent
representation and serve his client with skill and care; (2) failed to explain a matter
to the client; and (3) engaged in conduct that seriously interfered with the
administration of justice, thereby violating Rules 1.1 (a) & (b), 1.4 (b) and 8.4 (d)
of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct. In mitigation, the
Committee considered the fact that respondent knowingly and voluntarily
acknowledged the facts and misconduct and does not have a prior history of
discipline. As a result, Disciplinary Counsel and respondent negotiated the
imposition of discipline in the form of a thirty-day suspension, stayed, and one
year of probation during which respondent must (1) contact the District of
Columbia Bar’s Practice Management Advisory Service (PMAS) within thirty
days of the commencement of the probationary period and schedule and obtain an
assessment; (2) implement any PMAS recommendations; (3) provide PMAS with a
signed release waiving confidentiality so Disciplinary Counsel can verify
respondent obtained an assessment; (4) join the American Immigration Lawyers’
Association (AILA), or an equivalent organization; (5) enroll in and attend ten
CLE hours pertaining to immigration law; (6) submit proof of both his enrollment
in AILA, or an equivalent organization, and his completion of ten CLE hours
pertaining to immigration law; and (7) not be found to have engaged in any ethical
misconduct. After reviewing the amended petition for negotiated discipline,
4
considering a supporting affidavit, conducting a limited hearing, reviewing
Disciplinary Counsel’s files and records, and holding an ex parte meeting with
Disciplinary Counsel, the Committee concluded that the petition for negotiated
discipline should be approved.
In accordance with our procedures in uncontested disciplinary cases, we
agree this case is appropriate for negotiated discipline. We accept the Committee’s
recommendation because the Committee properly applied D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1
(c), and we find no error in the Committee’s determination. Based upon the record
before the court, the negotiated discipline of a thirty-day suspension from the
practice of law, stayed, and one year of probation with the conditions set forth
above is not unduly lenient considering the discipline imposed by this court for
similar actions.1 Accordingly, it is
1
In re Mance, 869 A.2d 339 (D.C. 2005) (suspending an attorney for thirty
days with the suspension conditionally stayed during a one-year probationary
period after the attorney (1) failed to timely pursue a client’s case on appeal or
protect his client’s rights; (2) neglected to move to have his client’s sentence
reduced based on merger; (3) failed to communicate with his client; and (4)
delayed moving to withdraw from the case after the client sought to terminate his
engagement); In re Dunietz, 687 A.2d 206 (D.C. 1996) (concluding a thirty-day
suspension, with a stay conditioned upon satisfactory completion of probation, was
warranted for an attorney, with no prior discipline history, who neglected a single
( continued…)
5
ORDERED that Dominic G. Vorv is hereby suspended from the practice of
law in the District of Columbia for thirty days, stayed, and is placed on one year of
supervised probation during which respondent must (1) contact PMAS within
thirty days of the commencement of the probationary period and schedule and
obtain an assessment; (2) implement any PMAS recommendations; (3) provide
PMAS with a signed release waiving confidentiality so Disciplinary Counsel can
verify respondent obtained an assessment; (4) join AILA or an equivalent
organization; (5) enroll in and attend ten CLE hours pertaining to immigration law;
(6) submit proof of both his enrollment in AILA, or an equivalent organization,
and his completion of ten CLE hours pertaining to immigration law; and (7) not be
found to have engaged in any ethical misconduct.
So ordered.
(…continued)
client by failing to act promptly, pursue the client’s objectives, and communicate
with the client).