In re M. Adriana Koeck, a/k/a Adriana Sanford , 178 A.3d 463 ( 2018 )

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. 14-BS-1462
IN RE M. ADRIANA KOECK,
AKA ADRIANA SANFORD, RESPONDENT.
An Administratively Suspended Member of the Bar
of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
(Bar Registration No. 439928)
On Report and Recommendation
of the Board on Professional Responsibility
(BDN 260-08)
(Decided February 8, 2018)
Before FISHER,* BECKWITH, and EASTERLY, Associate Judges.
PER CURIAM: In this case, the Board on Professional Responsibility has
adopted the Ad Hoc Hearing Committee’s uncontested findings that respondent
M. Adriana Koeck violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6 (a) when she
improperly disclosed confidences and secrets of her former employer to a
*
Judge Fisher concurs in the judgment only.
2
newspaper reporter. In addition, the Board has determined that respondent violated
Rule 1.6 (a) by making separate disclosures of confidences to the United States
Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois, the government of Brazil,
and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Based on its determination that
Respondent committed four separate rule violations, the Board has recommended a
sixty-day suspension with a fitness requirement. (The Hearing Committee
recommended a thirty-day suspension with a fitness requirement.) Respondent did
not participate in these disciplinary proceedings at any stage, and she did not file
any exceptions to the Committee’s report or to the Board’s Report and
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.”). We discern no reason to depart from the Board’s
determination of misconduct to the extent it is based on the Committee’s findings,
adopted by the Board, that respondent disclosed the confidences of a prior client to
a newspaper reporter, provided no defense for her disclosure, and did not respond
3
to Disciplinary Counsel’s request for information. See In re Burton, 472 A.2d 831,
846 (D.C. 1984) (Disciplinary Counsel must prove each violation, and, if
respondent raises a defense to the disclosure of confidential client information,
Disciplinary Counsel must establish the defense does not apply.). Moreover, the
Board’s recommended sanction—a sixty-day suspension with a fitness
requirement—is reasonable in light of the facts supporting this single violation of
Rule 1.6 (a), see, e.g., In re Martin, 67 A.3d 1032, 1053 (D.C. 2013) (in
determining the appropriate sanction, the court considers the seriousness and extent
of the conduct and respondent’s response to the allegations); In re Cater, 887 A.2d
1, 6 (D.C. 2005) (to impose a fitness requirement the record must contain clear and
convincing evidence that casts doubt on attorney’s fitness to practice law), and Ms.
Koeck’s failure to object to discipline by this court in any measure.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that M. Adriana Koeck is hereby suspended for a period of sixty
days with reinstatement subject to a showing of fitness. For the purposes of
reinstatement respondent’s period of suspension will not begin to run until such
4
time as she files an affidavit that fully complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar
R. XI, § 14 (g).
So ordered.