In re Griffin
In re Griffin
Opinion of the Court
The respondent, W. Bradney Griffin, is a member of the bar of this court
The scope of our review in uncontested cases such as this is extremely limited, and our deference to the Board’s recommendation is heightened. D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(f); In re Anya, 871 A.2d 1181, 1182 (D.C. 2005). Moreover, a thirty-day suspension followed by ninety days of probation is within the range of sanctions appropriate to cases where an attorney has not cooperated with the disciplinary authorities.
ORDERED that W. Bradney Griffin is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for thirty days, to be followed by ninety days of probation subject to the conditions imposed by the Vermont Professional Responsibility Board, to run nunc pro tunc from July 31, 2007.
So ordered.
. Respondent has, however, been administratively suspended for non-payment of his bar dues since September 2002.
. We note that this case presents us, again, with a situation where the underlying discipline was imposed before the issuance of Order No. M-228-07 (Aug. 31, 2007) (amending D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(a), to provide that entities such as the Vermont Professional Responsibility Board are "disciplining court[s]” for the purpose of reciprocal discipline), and that this might raise a question under In re Greenspan, 910 A.2d 324 (D.C. 2006). However, as we have stated previously, we do not find it necessary to address that question in uncontested reciprocal matters. See In re Dohbyn, 943 A.2d 1165 (D.C. 2008).
. The respondent’s failure would have also been a violation of our Rules of Professional Conduct.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- In re W. Bradney GRIFFIN, A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 459202)
- Status
- Published