On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility (BDN 465-97)
Before Schwelb and Farrell, Associate Judges, and Pryor, Senior
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam
Submitted January 15, 2002
In its attached Report and Recommendation, the Board on Professional Responsibility has recommended that Stephen R. Gregory, a member of our Bar, be disbarred for misappropriation, in violation of Rule 1.15 (a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and for failure to notify medical providers of his receipt of funds to which the providers were entitled, in violation of Rule 1.15 (b). For reasons explicated in considerable detail in its Report, the Board concluded that Gregory's conduct was reckless, rather than simply negligent, and that disbarrment was therefore the appropriate remedy. *fn1
Neither Bar Counsel nor Gregory has excepted to the Board's recommendation. This court is required to
adopt the recommended disposition of the Board unless to do so would foster a tendency toward inconsistent dispositions for comparable conduct or would otherwise be unwarranted. D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9 (g)(1).
"The deferential standard mandated by this provision becomes even more deferential where, as here, the attorney has failed to contest the proposed sanction." In re Goldsborough, 654 A.2d 1285, 1288 (D.C. 1995). Applying this standard, we agree, substantially for the reasons stated by the Board, that disbarrment is the appropriate remedy. See, e.g., In re Anderson, 778 A.2d 330 (D.C. 2001) (collecting authorities); In re Pels, 653 A.2d 388, 395-98 (D.C. 1995). Accordingly, Stephen R. Gregory is hereby
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
In the Matter of: STEPHEN R. GREGORY Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
Bar Counsel charged Respondent with violations of Rule 1.15(a) (misappropriation), Rule 1.15(b)(failure to notify third parties of receipt of funds to which they were entitled), and Rule 5.3(b)(failure to supervise a non-lawyer adequately). The charges were brought as a result of Respondent's failure to pay the medical ...