In re Libertelli ( 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-0243
IN RE CHRISTOPHER D. LIBERTELLI, RESPONDENT.
A Suspended Member of the Bar
of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
(Bar Registration No. 451341)
On Report and Recommendation
of the Board on Professional Responsibility
(BDN: 20-BD-050; DDN: 2019-D072)
(Decided June 8, 2023)
Before BECKWITH, EASTERLY, and MCLEESE, Associate Judges.
PER CURIAM: The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that
Christopher D. Libertelli be disbarred from the practice of law for flagrant
dishonesty. This court has previously concluded that disbarment is the appropriate
sanction for flagrant dishonesty. 1 Before the Board, respondent argued that his
1
In re White, 11 A.3d 1226, 1233 (D.C. 2011) (“Where this court has
concluded that the attorney’s conduct falls into a category of dishonesty of a flagrant
kind it has held disbarment to be the appropriate sanction.”); see also In re Howes,
52 A.3d 1, 15 (D.C. 2012) (“[W]here such dishonesty is aggravated and prolonged,
disbarment is the appropriate sanction.”); In re Corizzi, 803 A.2d 438, 443 (D.C.
2002) (imposing disbarment for dishonesty after attorney suborned perjury from two
of his clients and observing that the attorney need not financially benefit from the
2
sanction should be mitigated based on In re Kersey, 520 A.2d 321 (D.C. 1987). The
Board concluded that he failed to establish two of the three factors required for
Kersey mitigation. 2 Respondent has not filed any exceptions to the Board’s Report
and Recommendation nor has he filed the required D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), affidavit
after the court imposed an interim suspension on May 17, 2023.
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.”). Because no exceptions have been filed, disbarment is the
appropriate sanction for flagrant dishonesty, and respondent did not carry his burden
dishonesty in order to be disbarred); In re Goffe, 641 A.2d 458, 464 (D.C. 1994)
(imposing disbarment after attorney “repeated[ly] resort[ed] not only to false
testimony but to the actual manufacture and use of false documentary evidence in
official matters”).
2
See In re Schuman, 251 A.3d 1044, 1055 (D.C. 2021) (“In order to qualify
for a reduced sanction under the Kersey doctrine, an attorney must demonstrate (1)
by clear and convincing evidence that he had a disability; (2) by a preponderance of
the evidence that the disability substantially affected his misconduct; and (3) by clear
and convincing evidence that he has been substantially rehabilitated.” (internal
quotation marks omitted)).
3
to establish the requirements for Kersey mitigation, we accept the recommendation
that respondent be disbarred.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that respondent Christopher D. Libertelli is hereby disbarred from
the practice of law in this jurisdiction. Respondent’s attention is directed to the
requirements of D.C. Bar R. IX, § 14, and their effect on eligibility for reinstatement.
See D.C. Bar R. IX, § 16(c).
So ordered.