In re Davis ( 2023 )

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. 23-BG-0484
IN RE MARY E. DAVIS, RESPONDENT.
A Member of the Bar
of the District of Columbia
(Bar Registration No. 385583)
On Report and Recommendation of the
Board on Professional Responsibility Ad Hoc Hearing Committee
(Disciplinary Docket No. 2021-D078)
(Board Docket No. 22-ND-007)
(Decided: June 29, 2023)
Before ALIKHAN and SHANKER, Associate Judges, and THOMPSON, 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PER CURIAM: This decision is non-precedential.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 matter, the Hearing Committee recommends approval of a petition for
negotiated attorney discipline. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(c). Respondent Mary E.
Davis voluntarily acknowledged that, in connection with her appointment as counsel
in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, she failed to obtain her client’s informed
consent regarding a conflict of interest, and that her conflicted representation
2
(identified and remedied five years later during the Section 2255 appeal) seriously
interfered with the administration of justice. As a result, Ms. Davis admits that she
violated D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.7(b)(4) and 8.4(d). The proposed discipline
consists of a 30-day suspension, stayed in its entirety, with the conditions that she
not be the subject of a disciplinary complaint that results in a finding of misconduct
in this or any other jurisdiction for the nine-month period starting on June 21, 2022,
and that she take three hours of continuing legal education courses in legal ethics.
Having reviewed the Hearing Committee’s recommendation in accordance
with our procedures in uncontested disciplinary cases, see D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(d),
we agree that this case is appropriate for negotiated discipline and that “the sanction
agreed upon is justified,” In re Mensah, 262 A.3d 1100, 1104 (D.C. 2021) (per
curiam) (quoting D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(c)(3)), given the sanctions we have
previously imposed for similar violations, see, e.g., In re Zipin, No. 20-BG-182,
2020 WL 1950497 (D.C. Apr. 23, 2020) (per curiam); In re Robbins, 192 A.3d 558(D.C. 2018) (per curiam); In re Boykins, 748 A.2d 413 (D.C. 2000) (per curiam); see
also In re Mensah, 262 A.3d at 1104 (“[T]he sanctions imposed in negotiated-
discipline cases may in some cases be less stringent than would otherwise have been
appropriate in a contested-discipline case.”). Accordingly, it is
3
ORDERED that respondent Mary E. Davis is hereby suspended from the
practice of law in the District of Columbia for 30 days, stayed in its entirety, with
the following conditions (which the parties agree have already been satisfied):
(i) Respondent shall not be the subject of a disciplinary complaint that
results in a finding of misconduct in this or any other jurisdiction for
the nine-month period starting on June 21, 2022; and
(ii) Respondent shall take three hours of continuing legal education courses
in legal ethics.
So ordered.