Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 25-BG-0605

IN RE BRYAN S. ROSS, RESPONDENT.

A Member of the Bar of the

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

(Bar Registration No. 263863)

On Report and Recommendation of the Board on

Professional Responsibility Ad Hoc Hearing

Committee Approving Petition for Negotiated Discipline

(BDN: 24-ND-005; DDNs: 2023-D085, 2023-D162)

(Decided November 13, 2025)

Before MCLEESE and DEAHL, Associate Judges, and THOMPSON, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM: This decision is nonprecedential. Please refer to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(d), governing the appropriate citation of this opinion.

In this disciplinary matter, the Hearing Committee recommends approval of the parties’ petition for negotiated attorney discipline. Respondent Bryan S. Ross has acknowledged that, in connection with bankruptcy cases in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia, he engaged in conduct that (1) involved dishonesty, deceit, and/or misrepresentation, and (2) seriously interfered with the

2 administration of justice. As a result, respondent admits that he violated D.C. R. Pro. Conduct 8.4(c) & (d) and/or their counterparts in Maryland and/or Virginia. The proposed discipline consists of a one-year suspension.

Having reviewed the Committee’s recommendation in accordance with our procedures in these cases, see D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(d), we agree that this case is appropriate for negotiated discipline and “the agreed-upon sanction is justified,” In re Mensah, 262 A.3d 1100, 1104 (D.C. 2021) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted), in light of reasonably analogous precedents. See, e.g., In re Tun, 195 A.3d 65 (D.C. 2018); In re Hutchison, 534 A.2d 919 (D.C. 1987) (en banc); In re Thompson, 538 A.2d 247 (D.C. 1987) (per curiam); see also In re Teitelbaum, 303 A.3d 52, 56 (D.C. 2023) (providing that a negotiated discipline petition “may generally omit to charge a violation if, after reasonable factual investigation, there is a substantial risk that [the Office of Disciplinary Counsel] would not be able to establish the violation by clear and convincing evidence”). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that respondent Bryan S. Ross is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for one year.

3

Additionally, respondent is reminded that he must file with the Court an affidavit pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), for, inter alia, purposes of reinstatement in accordance with D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16, and Bd. Pro. Resp. R. 9.

So ordered.