In re Wilkins, Jr.
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. 20-BG-617 IN RE VINCENT WILKINS, JR., RESPONDENT. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 439005) On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility Ad Hoc Hearing Committee Approving Petition for Negotiated Discipline (DDN 117-17) (Decided: January 7, 2021) Before MCLEESE and DEAHL, Associate Judges, and STEADMAN, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM: This decision is non-precedential. Please refer to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(d) regarding the appropriate citation of this opinion. In this disciplinary matter, the Ad Hoc Hearing Committee (the Committee) recommends approval of a second amended petition for negotiated attorney discipline. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(c). The amended petition is based on Respondent’s voluntary acknowledgment that he failed to provide his client competent representation. 2 Respondent acknowledged that during his representation of his client he failed to serve his client with skill and care, failed to represent his client zealously and diligently, and failed to act with reasonable promptness in representing his client. As a result, Respondent violated D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(a), 1.1(b), 1.3(a) & (c). The proposed discipline is a 90-day suspension, with 60 days stayed in favor of a one-year period of unsupervised probation, during which Respondent must not engage in any misconduct in this or any other jurisdiction, must complete the D.C. Bar Practice Management Advisory Service’s Basic Training & Beyond program, and must undergo a Practice Management Assessment by the D.C. Bar Practice Management Advisory Service. In the event Respondent violates the conditions of probation, Disciplinary Counsel may seek to revoke probation and Respondent shall serve the stayed 60-day portion of the suspension. Having reviewed the Committee’s recommendation in accordance with our procedures in uncontested disciplinary cases, see D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(d), we agree this case is appropriate for negotiated discipline and the proposed disposition is not unduly lenient or inconsistent with dispositions imposed for comparable professional misconduct. Accordingly, it is 3 ORDERED that Respondent Vincent Wilkins, Jr. is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for 90 days, with 60 days stayed in favor of a one-year period of unsupervised probation, during which Respondent must not engage in any misconduct in this or any other jurisdiction, must complete the D.C. Bar Practice Management Advisory Service’s Basic Training & Beyond program, and must undergo a Practice Management Assessment by the D.C. Bar Practice Management Advisory Service. If Disciplinary Counsel has probable cause to believe Respondent has violated the conditions of his probation, Disciplinary Counsel may seek to revoke it, see D.C. Bar R. XI, § 3 and D.C. Board R. 18.3, and request he serve the stayed 60-day portion of the suspension. Additionally, if Respondent violates his probation, we direct his attention to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), which requires the filing of an affidavit with this court for purposes of reinstatement in accordance with D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16 and D.C. Board R. 9. 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.
