In re Phyllis J. Baron
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 b efore the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 02-BG-222 IN RE P HYLLIS J. B ARON, R ESPONDENT. A Member of the Bar of the District of C olumbia C ourt of A ppeals On Report and Recommendation of the Board o n Profess ional Resp onsibility (BDN 131-00) (Submitted September 24, 2002 Decided October 10, 2002) Before S CHWELB and R UIZ, Associate Judges, and N EWMAN, Senior Judge. P ER C URIAM: The Board on Professional Respon sibility ( the Board ), in accord with the Hearin g Com mittee, has fo und that res ponden t, Phyllis J. Baron, violated Ru les1.4 (a), 1.4 (b), and 1.16 (d) of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct in the course of her representation of a client whom she was appointed to represen t under the Criminal Justice A ct ( CJ A ). Respon dent conc eded that sh e failed to co mmun icate with her client during the entire pen dency of his a ppeal. 1 She did not respond to her client s attempts to commu nicate with her and ign ored this co urt s requests that she con tact her client. She did not inform her client of, nor accept, an offer by his co-def endant s co unsel to join in a motion for new trial, and she did not forward the client s case file to him u ntil tw o years after he complained to Bar Counsel, and even then she was unable to locate and send to him the trial transcripts. 1 She did not discuss with him the issues to be raised on appea l, she did not give him a copy of the brief she filed on his behalf, she did not inform him of this court s decision affirming his conviction, and she did not advise him of his post-appeal options. 2 The Board n oted that resp ondent w as inform ally admonished for similar misconduct in her representation of another CJA client during the same period of time. In mitigation, the Board considered that respondent was, at the time of her misconduct, the sole care provider for her m entally and ph ysically disabled adu lt son, and that she changed her practices after her informal admonition and is now conscientious about communicating with her clients. As discipline fo r responde nt s miscon duct, the Board recommends a thirty-day suspension, stayed in favor of one year of probation with certain conditions, inclu ding supe rvisi on by a practice monitor. This court will accept the Bo ard s findings as long as they are supported by substantial evidence in the record. D.C. Ba r R. XI, § 9 (g)(1). In this case, respondent stipulated to the underlying facts and the concomitant ethical violations. We will impose the sanction recomm ended by the Board u nless to do so would foster a tendency toward inconsistent dispositions for comparable conduct or would otherwise be unwa rranted . Id. Neither respondent nor Bar Counsel opposes the Board s report and recommendation, so we give the Board s recommendation heightened deference. D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9 (g)(2 ); In re Delaney, 697 A.2d 1212, 1214 (D.C. 1997). The sanction recommended by the Board is not inconsistent with discipline imposed in similar cases,2 thus we acce pt it. Accord ingly, it is ORDERED that Phyllis J. Baron is suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for the period of thirty days, the suspension is stayed, and respondent is placed 2 See, e.g., In re Stow, 633 A.2d 782 (D.C. 1993). 3 on probation for one year subject to the conditions that she be supervised by a Boardappointed practice mo nitor who will provide quarterly reports to the Board and Bar C ounsel, and that she comply with the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct. Upon respondent s satisfactory completion of the probation, the suspension order shall expire of its own force. Respondent shall, within thirty days fro m the date of this opin ion, file with the Board a statement certifying that she accepts these conditions of probation; if she fails to do so, the stay will be lifted and the suspen sion shall take effect without further order of this court. If the Board finds that respondent has violated the conditions of probation, the stay shall be lifted a nd the susp ension sha ll take effect ten days after the Bo ard submits its findings to this court. So ordered.
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.
