In re Wayne R. Bryant
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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. 10-BG-696 IN RE WAYNE R. BRYANT, RESPONDENT. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 957480) On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility (BDN 225-10) (Submitted May 24, 2012 Decided June 21, 2012) Before FISHER and BECKWITH, Associate Judges, and STEADMAN, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM: On July 24, 2009, respondent Wayne R. Bryant was convicted of six counts of honest services fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and 1346; one count of bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666 (a); and five counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. The events leading to Bryant s convictions are set forth more fully in United States v. Bryant, 655 F.3d 232 (3d Cir. 2011). Bar Counsel filed certified copies of respondent s conviction on June 11, 2010, and we suspended respondent on June 25, 2010, pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 10 (c). We directed the Board to institute formal proceedings to determine whether respondent committed crimes of moral turpitude under D.C. Code § 11-2503 (a) (2001), which 2 mandates disbarment upon conviction of a crime of moral turpitude. The Board finds respondent s convictions involve moral turpitude per se and recommends disbarment. The Board s recommendation is unopposed. We have previously held that both mail fraud and wire fraud are crimes of moral turpitude per se. In re Evans, 793 A.2d 468, 469 (D.C. 2002) (per curiam). See also In re Leffler, 940 A.2d 105, 106 (D.C. 2007) (per curiam). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Wayne R. Bryant is disbarred from practice in the District of Columbia. For the purposes of reinstatement, respondent s disbarment shall run from the date that he files an affidavit that fully complies with D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
