In re Rich, II

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. 21-BG-854
IN RE ARCHIE L. RICH, II, RESPONDENT.
A Member of the Bar
of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
(Bar Registration No. 471754)
On Report and Recommendation
of the Board on Professional Responsibility
(DDN 3-13 & 181-13)
(Decided January 27, 2022)
Before: MCLEESE and DEAHL, Associate Judges, and WASHINGTON, Senior
Judge.
PER CURIAM: The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that
respondent Archie L. Rich, II be disbarred from the practice of law in this
jurisdiction but that his disbarment be stayed in lieu of supervised probation for a
period of three years with conditions. Before the Ad Hoc Hearing Committee, Mr.
Rich stipulated to numerous violations, including reckless or intentional
misappropriation. Mr. Rich then presented mitigation evidence, pursuant to In re
Kersey, 520 A.2d 321 (D.C. 1987), to argue that he should not be disbarred. The
Committee found that respondent had established that he was suffering from a
2
disability at the time of his misconduct, his disability was a substantial cause of his
misconduct, and he was substantially rehabilitated. The Committee concluded that
Mr. Rich should be disbarred but that the mitigation evidence supported suspending
Mr. Rich’s disbarment in favor of a three-year period of supervised probation with
conditions. In re Kersey, 520 A.2d at 326-27. The Board on Professional
Responsibility accepted the Committee’s findings and recommendation. Mr. Rich
and Disciplinary Counsel have not filed an exception to the Board’s Report and
Recommendation.
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) (per curiam) (“When . . . there are no
exceptions to the Board’s report and recommendation, our deferential standard of
review becomes even more deferential.”). We are satisfied that the record supports
the Board’s Report and Recommendation. We therefore accept that
recommendation.
Accordingly, it is
3
ORDERED that respondent Archie L. Rich, II is hereby disbarred from the
practice of law in this jurisdiction, with the disbarment stayed in lieu of supervised
probation for a period of three years, subject to the following conditions: Mr. Rich
must (1) not commit any other disciplinary violations; (2) maintain his sobriety; (3)
continue with sobriety monitoring; (4) meet with a representative from the D.C.
Lawyers Assistance Program as necessary to maintain sobriety; (5) attend AA as
needed to maintain sobriety or as recommended by the Lawyers Assistance Program
or other involved experts; (6) attend and complete a CLE course on fund
management approved by Disciplinary Counsel; (7) within ninety days of this
opinion, complete and provide Disciplinary Counsel with a review of the accounts
and settlements audited by his accounting firm (MillerMusmar), unless already
provided; and (8) within eighteen months of this opinion, provide Disciplinary
Counsel with documentation reflecting the payment of restitution, with interest
calculated from the date the discounted amount was paid, to all medical providers
identified in Count II where Mr. Rich paid a discounted amount (if the provider
cannot be located, the amount should be deposited with the D.C. Bar Client Security
Fund).