In re Wilkins, Jr. ( 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. 20-BG-617
IN RE VINCENT WILKINS, JR., RESPONDENT.
A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
(Bar Registration No. 439005)
On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional
Responsibility Ad Hoc Hearing Committee
Approving Petition for Negotiated Discipline
(DDN 117-17)
(Decided: January 7, 2021)
Before MCLEESE and DEAHL, Associate Judges, and STEADMAN, Senior Judge.
PER CURIAM: This decision is non-precedential. Please refer to D.C. Bar R.
XI, § 12.1(d) regarding the appropriate citation of this opinion.
In this disciplinary matter, the Ad Hoc Hearing Committee (the Committee)
recommends approval of a second amended petition for negotiated attorney
discipline. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(c). The amended petition is based on
Respondent’s voluntary acknowledgment that he failed to provide his client
competent representation.
2
Respondent acknowledged that during his representation of his client he
failed to serve his client with skill and care, failed to represent his client zealously
and diligently, and failed to act with reasonable promptness in representing his
client. As a result, Respondent violated D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(a),
1.1(b), 1.3(a) & (c). The proposed discipline is a 90-day suspension, with 60 days
stayed in favor of a one-year period of unsupervised probation, during which
Respondent must not engage in any misconduct in this or any other jurisdiction,
must complete the D.C. Bar Practice Management Advisory Service’s Basic
Training & Beyond program, and must undergo a Practice Management
Assessment by the D.C. Bar Practice Management Advisory Service. In the event
Respondent violates the conditions of probation, Disciplinary Counsel may seek to
revoke probation and Respondent shall serve the stayed 60-day portion of the
suspension.
Having reviewed the Committee’s recommendation in accordance with our
procedures in uncontested disciplinary cases, see D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(d), we
agree this case is appropriate for negotiated discipline and the proposed disposition
is not unduly lenient or inconsistent with dispositions imposed for comparable
professional misconduct. Accordingly, it is
3
ORDERED that Respondent Vincent Wilkins, Jr. is hereby suspended from
the practice of law in the District of Columbia for 90 days, with 60 days stayed in
favor of a one-year period of unsupervised probation, during which Respondent
must not engage in any misconduct in this or any other jurisdiction, must complete
the D.C. Bar Practice Management Advisory Service’s Basic Training & Beyond
program, and must undergo a Practice Management Assessment by the D.C. Bar
Practice Management Advisory Service. If Disciplinary Counsel has probable
cause to believe Respondent has violated the conditions of his probation,
Disciplinary Counsel may seek to revoke it, see D.C. Bar R. XI, § 3 and D.C.
Board R. 18.3, and request he serve the stayed 60-day portion of the suspension.
Additionally, if Respondent violates his probation, we direct his attention to D.C.
Bar R. XI, § 14(g), which requires the filing of an affidavit with this court for
purposes of reinstatement in accordance with D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16 and D.C. Board
R. 9.
So ordered.