Before Terry and Glickman, Associate Judges, and Ferren, Senior
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam
A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility
Submitted November 9, 1999
This case is before us on the Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility (the Board) recommending that respondent Annette Regent be disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. The Board found grounds for disbarrment based on violations of three Rules of Professional Conduct, 8.1 (a), 8.1 (b), and 8.4 (c). *fn1
Respondent was admitted to the State Bar of Hawaii and the Bar of the District of Columbia. On May 23, 1995, the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii disbarred respondent. The charges arose from respondent's submission of false and misleading statements on her Arizona and Nevada bar applications and in the Arizona fitness investigation.
After learning of respondent's disbarrment in Hawaii, Bar Counsel filed with this court a certified copy of the Hawaii disciplinary order. On July 26, 1995, this court temporarily suspended respondent pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(d). This court also directed respondent to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed and ordered "the Board on Professional Responsibility . . . to recommend . . . whether identical, greater or lesser discipline should be imposed as reciprocal discipline, or whether the Board instead elects to proceed de novo." The Board ordered that reciprocal discipline not be imposed because it did not appear that respondent had received actual notice of the Hawaii disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, Bar Counsel filed a Petition and Specification of Charges, which were served on respondent by first-class mail and certified mail at her last known address. *fn2 The Hearing Committee held a hearing on the charges at which respondent did not appear. The Hearing Committee adopted Bar Counsel's proposed findings of fact based on the uncontested evidence (which was substantially documentary in character), and concluded that the disciplinary violations were established. The Board adopted the Hearing Committee's findings.
In brief, the Hearing Committee and the Board found that in December 1991, respondent applied for admission to the Arizona Bar and swore upon oath or affirmation that her answers on the bar application were full, true, and complete in all respects. She responded falsely to specific questions, however, in a number of material respects.
Specifically, she did not disclose the following information which she was required to provide:
(1) that she was a member of the Bar of the District of Columbia;
(2) that she had applied to the California Bar and had sat for eleven California Bar examinations but had not been admitted to practice in California;
(3) that she had been charged with disturbing the peace in a criminal complaint in California; *fn3
(4) that she had been a party to three civil lawsuits; and
(5) that she had been the subject of three separate ethics complaints filed ...