by Richard W. Millar, Jr.

To most, honor is a sign of great respect. We honor our forebears, our flag, and, to some extent, our politicians. (It is no accident that many politicians surround themselves with flags when they speak to us, hoping for a transference of honor by mere propinquity.)

As lawyers, we take oaths and strive to a career of honesty and trustworthiness. We place funds in “trust” accounts: a term which double means the legal structure of the account and our client’s trust that we handle their money properly.

It is no accident that we refer to our judges as “Your Honor,” as they fulfill an even greater role in ensuring our laws are followed.

Sometimes, however, our sense of honor gets skewed. We honor that which we should not.

Like disbarment.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) which deals with members of the Washington, D.C. bar, instituted proceedings against one Glenn H. Stephens, III. After a four-day hearing in which Mr. Stephens did not participate, it concluded that he had violated the Rules of Professional Conduct relating to frivolous claims in four matters, expediting litigation in one matter, violating the rules of a tribunal in one matter, communicating with a represented person in one matter, embarrassing or burdening third parties in four matters, serious interference with the administration of justice in three matters, and misuse of criminal/disciplinary charges in two matters. All in all, a serious bag of claims.

The Committee recommended that Mr. Stephens be suspended for three years with reinstatement conditioned upon a showing of fitness. Disciplinary Counsel disagreed and argued that Mr. Stephens be disbarred.

Mr. Stephens “took no exception” to the Committee’s 252-page report and did not oppose “Disciplinary Counsel’s call for his disbarment.”

So, to steal from Wendy’s former ad campaign, “Where’s the beef?”

The case went to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals with a recommendation that Mr. Stephens be disbarred by his consent.

The consent issue had caused a split because consent required that Mr. Stephens sign an affidavit with obligatory language and he did not do that. Therefore, to some it was “no affidavit—no consent.” To others it was more along the lines of: why are we spending time on this obviously uncontested matter. The cause of the issue was this email from Mr. Stephens:

Please don’t kill trees, waste taxpayer resources and ODC personnel on me. ODC has no credibility or legitimacy to me. Or the drivel you generate. You are simply dishonest lawyers who do nothing to regulate dishonest lawyers. And racists to boot. Rather than wasting time, money, and paper on your sophistries, please disbar me. Disbarment by ODC would be an honor. To date, aside from competing in the triathlon world championships, my greatest honors are my PhD from UCLA and my law degree from [Berkeley Law]. But a disbarment letter from the ODC will be framed and go up right alongside those diplomas. Please do me the honor of disbarring me. I will be so very proud. Glenn

The Court of Appeals found that regardless of the lack of affidavit, “Respondent’s words and actions dispel any concern that his request to be disbarred and failure to file exceptions were unknowing, improvident or coerced.” It also found that there had been a full evidentiary hearing, a lengthy and comprehensive decision with findings supported by clear and convincing evidence. It ordered an immediate disbarment.

In short, it honored his request.

Richard W. Millar, Jr. is Of Counsel with the firm of FSG Lawyers PC in Irvine. He can be reached at rmillar@fsglawyers.com.