In re Young ( 2024 )

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. 24-BG-0438
IN RE RACHELLE S. YOUNG, RESPONDENT.
A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
(Bar Registration No. 997809)
On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional
Responsibility Ad Hoc Hearing Committee
Approving Petition for Negotiated Discipline
(BDN: 23-ND-005; DDNs: 2021-D020, 2021-D021, 2022-D208)
(Decided: June 13, 2024)
Before BECKWITH and DEAHL, Associate Judges, and RUIZ, 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PER CURIAM: This decision is non-precedential.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 Hearing Committee recommends approval of a
petition for negotiated attorney discipline. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(c).
Respondent Rachelle S. Young voluntarily acknowledged that in three client matters
she failed to represent the client diligently and zealously, failed to keep the client
informed of the status of the matter and comply with reasonable requests for
2
information, and failed to explain the matter to the client to the extent reasonably
necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the
representation; in two of three matters, she failed to protect the client’s interests as
the representation was ending; and the third matter involved misconduct that
occurred in connection with a proceeding before a Maryland tribunal. As a result,
respondent admits that she violated D.C. R. Pro. Conduct 1.3(a), 1.4(a)-(b), and
1.16(d), and Md. R. 19-301.3, 19-301.4(a)(2)-(3), and 19-301.4(b). The proposed
discipline consists of a thirty-day suspension stayed in favor of one year of probation
with conditions.
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
that this case is appropriate for negotiated discipline and that “the agreed-upon
sanction 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)), in light of reasonably analogous precedents.
See, e.g., In re Chapman, 962 A.2d 922 (D.C. 2008) (per curiam); In re Mance, 869
A.2d 339 (D.C. 2005) (per curiam); In re Ontell, 593 A.2d 1038 (D.C. 1991); see
also In re Tun, 286 A.3d 538, 543 (D.C. 2022) (explaining that even when
“evaluating misconduct under the rules of another jurisdiction, we make sanctions
determinations pursuant to District of Columbia law”). Accordingly, it is
3
ORDERED that respondent Rachelle S. Young is hereby suspended from the
practice of law in the District of Columbia for thirty days, stayed in its entirety, and
placed on one year of probation with the following conditions:
(i) Respondent must take the two-day “Basic Training and Beyond” course
offered by the District of Columbia Bar and must take an additional
three hours of pre-approved continuing legal education courses that are
related to attorney ethics. Within six months of the date of this opinion,
respondent must certify and provide documenting proof to the Office
of the Disciplinary Counsel that she has met these two requirements.
(ii) During the period of probation, respondent shall not be the subject of a
disciplinary complaint that results in a finding that she violated the
disciplinary rules of any jurisdiction in which she is admitted or
licensed to practice.
(iii) Within thirty days of the date of this opinion, respondent must meet
with Dan Mills, Esquire, the Manager of the Practice Management
Advisory Service (“PMAS”) of the District of Columbia Bar (or his
successor or designee) in person or virtually. At that meeting,
respondent must execute a waiver allowing PMAS to communicate
directly with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel regarding her
compliance. When respondent meets with PMAS virtually or in person
4
she will make any and all records relating to her practice available for
its review. Respondent shall ask PMAS to conduct a full assessment of
her structure and her practice, including but not limited to all law firm
processes and procedures, financial records, client files, engagement
letters, supervision and training of staff, and responsiveness to clients.
Respondent shall adopt all recommendations and implement them in
the law firm and her general practice of law. During her probation,
respondent shall consult regularly with PMAS on the schedule it
establishes. Respondent must be in full compliance with PMAS’s
requirements for a period of twelve consecutive months, and it is
respondent’s sole responsibility to demonstrate compliance.
Respondent must sign an acknowledgement under penalty of perjury
affirming that she is in compliance with PMAS’s requirements and file
the signed acknowledgement with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
This must be accomplished no later than seven business days after the
end of her period of probation.
(v) If the Office of Disciplinary Counsel has probable cause to believe that
respondent has violated the terms of her probation, it may seek to
revoke her probation pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 3 and Bd. Pro. Resp.
5
R. 18.3 and request that she be required to serve the thirty-day
suspension.
By agreement of the parties, this sanction will not take effect, i.e. respondent’s
probation will not begin, until thirty days after the date of this opinion.
So ordered.