In re Thoman Ian Moir ( 2021 )

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. 19-BG-1075
IN RE THOMAS IAN MOIR, RESPONDENT.
A Suspended Member of the Bar
of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
(Bar Registration No. 978531)
On Report and Recommendation
of the Board on Professional Responsibility
(BDN 68-19)
(Decided September 2, 2021)
Before: GLICKMAN and DEAHL, Associate Judges, and NEBEKER, Senior
Judge.
PER CURIAM: The Board of Professional Responsibility recommends that
Thomas Ian Moir be disbarred from the practice of law after pleading guilty to one
count of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). Although the
Board concluded that the crime was not a crime of moral turpitude under the “most
benign conduct punishable under the statute” standard, 1 it did conclude that under
1
In re Squillacote, 790 A.2d 514, 517 (D.C. 2002).
2
the facts acknowledged as part of the respondent’s plea his actions constitute a crime
of moral turpitude. The Board therefore recommends disbarment. 2 Respondent did
not file an exception to the Disciplinary Counsel’s recommendation that he be
disbarred for committing a crime of moral turpitude, nor did he file any exceptions
to the Board’s Report or Recommendation.
Under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(h)(2), “if no exceptions are filed to the Board’s
report, the [c]ourt will enter an order imposing the discipline recommended by the
Board upon the expiration of the time permitted for filing exceptions.” See also In
re Viehe, 762 A.2d 542, 543 (D.C. 2000) (“When . . . there are no exceptions to the
Board’s report and recommendation, our deferential standard of review becomes
even more deferential.”). Because no exceptions have been filed, we need not
address the Board’s newly enacted procedures for resolving disciplinary matters
based on criminal convictions or reach the issue of whether this offense constitutes
a crime of moral turpitude per se or as applied to respondent’s actions, as both
2
See D.C. Code § 11-2503(a) (2012 Repl.).
3
support the recommendation of disbarment. 3 We therefore accept the
recommendation that respondent be disbarred. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that respondent Thomas Ian Moir is hereby disbarred from the
practice of law in this jurisdiction. Respondent’s attention is directed 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).
3
See, e.g., In re Goldsborough, 654 A.2d 1285, 1287 (D.C. 1995) (imposing
recommended discipline while declining to resolve “some difficult questions raised
in the Board’s [Report]” where respondent took no part in the proceedings).