Skip to main content

IN RE: C. Crady SWISHER (2003)

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

IN RE: C. Crady SWISHER, Respondent. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

No. 01-BG-920.

Decided: June 05, 2003

Before WAGNER, Chief Judge, SCHWELB, Associate Judge, and NEBEKER, Senior Judge.

Respondent was disciplined in West Virginia for failure to pay an amount owed on a judgment entered for non-payment of a promissory note signed in partial settlement of a malpractice action.   The District of Columbia has no such disciplinary sanction.   Respondent was also disciplined there for failing to respond and cooperate during the disciplinary investigation.   The sanction was (1) suspension until he paid in full, plus interest, the amount owed;  (2) successful completion of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination;  and (3) paid all costs of the investigation and hearing in the matter.

The Board concurs with Bar Counsel that no reciprocal discipline be imposed for failure to pay the amount he owed.   We do not quarrel with this recommendation, but decline, as did the Board, to decide here whether such failure could ever warrant discipline under our Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rule 8.4(d) (conduct seriously interfering with the administration of justice).   Respondent's remaining misconduct, failing to respond to and cooperate during the disciplinary investigation, constitutes misconduct in this jurisdiction and warrants reciprocal discipline.   See Rule 8.1(b);  see also In re Beller, 802 A.2d 340 (D.C.2002).

We agree with the Board's recommendation that discipline substantially different from that imposed in West Virginia is warranted.   See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(c)(4).   The Board concurs with Bar Counsel that respondent be suspended for thirty days, with a fitness showing, reflecting our acknowledgment of West Virginia's condition respecting education as to ethics responsibilities.   We also note that respondent has been suspended from practice here since 1994 for non-payment of Bar dues under D.C. Bar R. II, § 6.

Accordingly, respondent is suspended for thirty days consecutively should he be reinstated under D.C. Bar R. II, § 8. Reinstatement after this thirty-day suspension with fitness may not be granted until thirty days after respondent has filed the affidavit (which he has not filed since his 1994 suspension) as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g).  In addition, we accept the fitness requirement recommended by the Board to ensure that respondent, should he seek reinstatement from our present suspension, is then fit to practice law as a member of the District of Columbia Bar.

So ordered.


Was this helpful?

Thank you. Your response has been sent.

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go to Learn About the Law
IN RE: C. Crady SWISHER (2003)

Docket No: No. 01-BG-920.

Decided: June 05, 2003

Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory

Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.

Sign up

Learn About the Law

Get help with your legal needs

FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.

Learn more about the law
Copied to clipboard