....
b. Analysis of the Roundtree Factors
(i) The nature and circumstances of the misconduct for which Respondent was disciplined. We reiterate here our conclusion that Respondent’s multiple violations of Rules 1.2(a), 1.4(b), 1.5(b), 1.5(c), 1.6(a)(1) and (3) and 1.7(b)(4) were especially egregious, and we incorporate by reference the assessments underlying that conclusion. See supra, at 149-59.
(ii) Whether Respondent recognizes the seriousness of the misconduct. We reiterate our conclusion that Respondent does not acknowledge or even recognize the extreme seriousness of his conduct and that he blames others rather than himself for his incurrence of disciplinary charges and the harm caused by his Rules violations, and we incorporate by reference the assessment underlying that conclusion. See supra, at 136-41.
166
(iii) Respondent’s conduct since discipline was imposed, including the steps taken to remedy past wrongs and prevent future ones. Respondent does not appear to have taken any steps in the eight years since the representation to remedy his past misconduct, to ameliorate the harm he caused to Ms. Sataki, or to prevent such misconduct in the future. See also infra, at 166-82. (discussion of fifth Roundtree factor -- Respondent’s present qualifications and competence).
(iv) Respondent’s present character. The troubling aspects of Respondent’s character that led in significant part to his derogation of his professional responsibilities during his representation of Ms. Sataki and to the litigation tactics to which he resorted in Falahati and BBG and in this proceeding appear at the present time to remain unchanged. Our concern arises, of course, from several of the circumstances already discussed in this Report -- i.e. the extreme nature of several of his Rules violations, especially his disregard of Ms. Sataki’s wishes, his pursuit of his own agenda and his verbal abuse of her; his obdurate refusal to recognize or acknowledge his missteps; his insistence on blaming others for his missteps and the ensuing consequences; and his attitude toward this proceeding. Our concern is deepened further by the considerations discussed in the next, final sub-section of our Roundtree analysis.
(v) Respondent’s present qualifications and competence to practice law. We have several, very worrisome concerns with respect to Respondent’s present qualifications and competence to practice law for the following reasons.
167
(a) Respondent’s litigation tactics. Respondent has employed in this matter the same groundless and abusive tactic of alleging bias and seeking disqualification or other remedies that he resorted to in Falahati and BBG. See, e.g.,:
{snip}
VI. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Hearing Committee recommends that the
183
Board find that Respondent violated Rules 1.2(a), 1.4(b), 1.5(b), 1.5(c), 1.6(a)(1), 1.6(a)(3), 1.7(b)(4), and 1.16(a)(3). The Committee further recommends that Respondent be suspended for 33 months and be required to prove his fitness to practice as a condition of reinstatement. Finally, the Committee recommends that the Court direct Respondent’s attention to the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14, and their effect on eligibility for reinstatement. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16(c).
Respectfully submitted,
{signatures}
= new reply since forum marked as read
