Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

01/26/93 MATTER WILLIAM E. HILL RESPONDENT A MEMBER

January 26, 1993

IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM E. HILL, RESPONDENT; A MEMBER OF THE BAR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS


Before Schwelb, Associate Judge, and Gallagher and Reilly, Senior Judges.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam

On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility

PER CURIAM: Respondent William E. Hill, Esq. persistently neglected a criminal appeal to which he had been appointed. After his conduct was referred to Bar Counsel by the Chief Judge of this court, Hill failed to cooperate with Bar Counsel's investigation. Bar Counsel instituted disciplinary proceedings and, on February 13, 1992, a Hearing Committee found by clear and convincing evidence that Hill had neglected a legal matter entrusted to him and had engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of Justice. The Committee recommended that Hill be informally admonished.

On July 27, 1992, the Board on Professional Responsibility issued its Report and Recommendation, which is attached hereto and made a part of this opinion. The Board adopted the Hearing Committee's findings and Conclusions, but concluded that Hill's conduct warranted a more severe sanction and recommended public censure.

Neither Bar Counsel nor respondent Hill has filed exceptions to the Board's Report and Recommendation, see D.C. App. R.XI, § 9 (e), and we agree with the Board's reasoning. Accordingly, for the reasons stated by the Board, William E. Hill, Esq. is hereby publicly censured.

So ordered.

ATTACHMENT

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

In the Matter of: WILLIAM E. HILL, Respondent.

Docket No. 253-90

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

On April 30, 1991, Bar Counsel charged Respondent with violating DR 1-102(A)(5) and Rule 8.4(d) by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of Justice, DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglect), DR 7-101(A)(3) (intentionally prejudicing or damaging his client during the course of a professional relationship), and DR 7-101(A)(1) (intentional failure to seek the lawful objectives of his client).

A hearing was set for September 11, 1991, but was continued when a request for the appointment of a Board-compensated counsel was approved. On October 10, 1991, a pre-hearing conference was held at which counsel filed a motion for leave to file answer and a proposed answer to the petition. On October 29, 1991, a stipulation was entered into between Bar Counsel and Respondent in which Respondent admitted to a violation of DR 6-101(A)(3) and Bar Counsel indicated that he would not offer evidence to support a finding that Respondent violated DR 7-101(A)(1) or (A)(3). Both Bar Counsel and Respondent submitted briefs as to the other violations and sanction. On February 13, 1992, the Hearing Committee issued its report concluding that Respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3), DR 1-102(A)(5) and Rule 8.4, and recommended that Respondent be informally admonished.

The Board has reviewed the record in this case and adopts the Hearing Committee's findings and Conclusions, but takes exception to the recommended sanction. The Board believes that Respondent's misconduct warrants ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.