On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility
Before Schwelb and Wagner, Associate Judges, and Mack, Senior Judge.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam
PER CURIAM: In its Report and Recommendation, which is attached hereto, the Board on Professional Responsibility concluded that respondent Charles F. Stow III, Esq. neglected the legal interests of his client, in violation of DR 6-101 (A)(3). The Board has recommended (a) that respondent be required to repay a $750 fee; (b) that he be suspended for thirty days; (c) that the suspension be stayed for one year; and (d) that respondent be placed on probation for one year, during which his activities would be subject to oversight by a Practice Monitor. The Board based its recommendation on a comprehensive and thoughtful Report by the Hearing Committee. Although respondent litigated the issues vigorously before the Hearing Committee and the Board, he has filed no exceptions to the Board's Report and Recommendation.
We agree, substantially for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, that respondent has violated DR 6-101 (A)(3). We specifically hold that the sanction of probation recommended by the Hearing Committee and by the Board is appropriate even though this case involved no allegation of use of or addiction to a controlled substance or to alcohol. See In re Bradbury, 608 A.2d 1218, 1219 (D.C. 1992). Accordingly,
1. Within thirty days of the date of this opinion, *fn1 respondent Charles F. Stow, III Esq. shall repay the fee of $750 to his former client, Mr. Elmer Wilbur Toogood;
2. Thirty days after the date of this opinion, respondent Charles F. Stow III, Esq. shall be suspended from practice for a period of thirty days, subject, however, to the provisions set forth below;
3. If, within thirty days of the date of this opinion, respondent Charles F. Stow III, Esq. has filed with the Board on Professional Responsibility a statement certifying that he accepts the conditions of probation set forth in the Board's Report, the suspension shall be stayed for a period of one year, and respondent Charles F. Stow III, Esq. shall be placed on probation for one year, during which period his activities shall be overseen by a Practice Monitor;
4. If the respondent Charles F. Stow III, Esq. has not filed with the Board the statement described in paragraph 3, (supra) , within thirty days of the date of this opinion, the order of suspension shall take effect without further order of the court. The respondent's attention is directed to D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 4(a).
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
In the matter of CHARLES STOW, III, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD
We have before us the Report of Hearing Committee No. 1, dated May 7, 1990, recommending that Respondent, Charles Stow, be subjected to sanctions for violating the Disciplinary Rules by neglecting a client matter. The Hearing Committee recommended the following sanctions: (a) that Respondent repay a $750 fee; (b) that Respondent be suspended for 30 days; (c) that the suspension be stayed for one year; and (d) that Respondent be placed on probation for one year during which his activities would be subject to oversight by a Practice Monitor. We agree with the Committee's recommendations and pass them on to the Court.
Bar Counsel's Petition in No. 294-89 *fn2 had charged Respondent with three separate violations of the Disciplinary Rules arising from his undertaking to provide legal services to Elmer Wilbur Toogood. Mr. Toogood had just been convicted in a criminal case handled by a different lawyer. The principal factual issue at the hearing involved ...