In re Arron R. Padharia ( 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. 17-BG-1463
IN RE AROON R. PADHARIA, RESPONDENT.
A Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
(Bar Registration No. 470038)
On Report and Recommendation
of the Board on Professional Responsibility
(BDN 238-12)
(Decided August 20, 2020)
Before FISHER and THOMPSON, Associate Judges, and NEBEKER, Senior
Judge.
PER CURIAM: In this case, the Board on Professional Responsibility concurred
with many of the findings of the Hearing Committee and determined by clear and
convincing evidence that respondent had violated Rules 3.4(c), 8.1(b), and 8.4(d) of
the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct. The Board agreed with the
Committee’s recommendation that respondent should be suspended from the
2
practice of law for six months, but it also recommended that a fitness requirement
be imposed as a condition of reinstatement.
The Board accepted the Committee’s factual findings that Aroon R. Padharia
filed thirty separate Petitions for Review of adverse immigration decisions in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit but failed to file briefs in
twenty-nine of those cases, although he had sought and obtained extensions of time
to do so. After his clients notified him that they did not want to pursue their appeals,
respondent failed to notify the court of his clients’ decisions and failed to file
motions to dismiss. By doing nothing, he obliged the court to eventually dismiss
those appeals for failure to prosecute.
The Board adopted the findings of the Committee that respondent violated
Rule 3.4(c) by knowingly disobeying his obligations under the rules of a tribunal.
Although the Committee concluded that respondent’s routine disregard for court
orders and rules in these matters did not seriously interfere with the administration
of justice, the Board disagreed and found that respondent’s actions and omissions
seriously interfered with the administration of justice and thus violated Rule 8.4(d).
3
See, e.g., In re Murdter, 131 A.3d 355, 357 (D.C. 2016). 1 The Board agreed with
the Hearing Committee that respondent violated both Rule 8.4(d) and Rule 8.1(b) by
failing timely to respond to the inquiries of Disciplinary Counsel.
In considering the appropriate discipline, the Board noted that “Respondent’s
conduct did not involve dishonesty, he has no prior discipline, and there is no
evidence that any of Respondent’s clients were prejudiced by his conduct.”
Nevertheless, it recommended a fitness requirement, finding not merely that clear
and convincing evidence raised a serious doubt that respondent would refrain from
repeating these violations, 2 but, indeed, clear and convincing evidence that
respondent would repeat the same conduct in the future. The Board based its
conclusion on: (1) its findings that respondent’s repeated failures to file briefs or
comply with court orders during the course of the immigration appeals constituted a
serious interference with the administration of justice; (2) the sheer number of such
cases; and (3) the fact that respondent failed to acknowledge the seriousness of his
1
See, e.g., In re Micheel, 610 A.2d 231, 235 (D.C. 1992) (when factual
findings also result in legal conclusions, the Board owes no deference to the
Committee’s legal conclusion).
2
In re Guberman, 978 A.2d 200, 213 (D.C. 2009); In re Cater, 887 A.2d 1,
6 (D.C. 2005).
4
misconduct but continued to believe his actions did not violate the rules of
professional conduct, impede the administration of justice, or harm his clients.
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, 543-44 (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 initially informed this court that he would
oppose the Board’s report and was given numerous extensions of time to do so;
however, he failed to file a brief, and we consider the underlying factual findings to
be uncontested. We further conclude that the record supports those factual findings
of the Committee which the Board adopted, as well as the Board’s additional
findings and conclusions that respondent’s actions during his representation in the
immigration cases violated Rule 8.4(d).
We discern no reason to depart from the Board’s recommendation concerning
the appropriate sanction. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Aroon R. Padharia is
hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for six months,
and his reinstatement is conditioned on showing his fitness to practice law. For
5
purposes of reinstatement, the period of respondent’s suspension will not begin to
run until such time as he files an affidavit that complies with D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g).
So ordered.