In re Luis F. Salgado , 207 A.3d 168 ( 2019 )

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. 18-BG-1141
IN RE LUIS F. SALGADO, RESPONDENT.
A Suspended Member of the Bar
of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
(Bar Registration No. 342444)
On Report and Recommendation
of the Board on Professional Responsibility
(BDN 158-10)
(Decided May 2, 2019)
Before GLICKMAN and FISHER, Associate Judges, and FERREN, Senior Judge.
PER CURIAM: In this case, the Board on Professional Responsibility concurs
with the Ad Hoc Hearing Committee’s factual findings and conclusions of law that
respondent’s extended inadequate record-keeping violated Rule of Professional
Conduct 1.15 (a) and D.C. Bar Rule XI § 19(f). The Board further agreed with the
Committee that respondent admitted at the hearing to having commingled personal
funds with entrusted funds and therefore also could be found to have violated Rule
1.1 (a), even though that violation was not included in the specification of charges.
The Board accepted the Committee’s recommended sanction of a thirty-day
2
suspension with a requirement to demonstrate fitness to resume the practice of law
as a condition of reinstatement; though the Board expressed concern that the period
of suspension was insufficient by itself, it was satisfied that the fitness requirement
would protect the public.
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.”). Respondent has not filed exceptions to either the
Committee’s Report or the Board’s Report and Recommendation, and the record
supports the Committee’s findings. We accept the recommended sanction for the
reasons given by the Board and because respondent recently has been suspended
with a fitness requirement in another disciplinary matter, 1 which means his total
combined period of suspension will exceed thirty days. See, e.g., In re Guberman,
978 A.2d 200 (D.C. 2009); In re Cater, 887 A.2d 1 (D.C. 2005).
1
In re Luis Salgado, No. 18-BG-1125, Order at 2018 WL 6684321 (D.C. Dec.
20, 2018). We note that respondent has failed to file a compliant affidavit in this
earlier disciplinary action as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g). This failure delays
his eligibility to apply for reinstatement. See id. § 16 (c).
3
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that respondent Luis F. Salgado is hereby suspended from the
practice of law in the District of Columbia for thirty days and his reinstatement is
conditioned on a showing of fitness to resume the practice of law. We direct
respondent’s attention to his obligation under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g), to file a
compliant affidavit; any delay in filing that affidavit will delay respondent’s
eligibility to apply for reinstatement, as set forth in D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16 (c).