In re Wayne Robert Rohde ( 2020 )

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. 20-BG-270
IN RE WAYNE ROBERT ROHDE, RESPONDENT.
A Member of the Bar
of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
(Bar Registration No. 421213)
On Report and Recommendation
of the Board on Professional Responsibility
(BDN-336-13)
(Decided August 13, 2020)
Before BECKWITH and MCLEESE, Associate Judges, and NEBEKER, Senior
Judge.
PER CURIAM: The Board on Professional Responsibility adopted a Hearing
Committee’s findings that respondent Wayne Robert Rohde violated Virginia Rules
3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(c), and the Board recommends that respondent be publicly
censured. Specifically, the Committee found by clear and convincing evidence that
respondent knowingly made a false statement to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia in connection with an application to be admitted to
that court pro hac vice, by representing that there had not been any action in any
court pertaining to his conduct or fitness as a member of the bar, even though
2
respondent knew that this court had referred his criminal felony conviction to the
Board on Professional Responsibility in 2006 to determine what action should be
taken. The Committee also found by clear and convincing evidence that respondent
misled the attorney sponsoring his pro hac vice application, by failing to disclose to
her the prior conviction and the related disciplinary proceedings.
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) (per curiam) (“When . . . there are no
exceptions to the Board’s report and recommendation, our deferential standard of
review becomes even more deferential.”). Neither respondent nor Disciplinary
Counsel has filed exceptions to the Board’s Report and Recommendation, and we
are satisfied that the Board’s recommendation is supported by substantial evidence.
We see no reason to reject the discipline recommended by the Board. See id. at 543.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that respondent Wayne Robert Rohde is hereby publicly
censured.
3
So ordered.