Washington Lawyer - May/June 2024 - 45

DISCIPLINARY SUMMARIES
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Disciplinary Actions Taken by the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Original Matters
In re Mary Chris Dobbie. Bar No. 975939. December
7, 2023. The D.C. Court of Appeals
suspended Dobbie for six months, stayed in
favor of one year's probation with terms for
violations of Rules 3.8(e), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
While prosecuting several inmates at the District
of Columbia Jail for an assault on a law
enforcement officer during a fight, Dobbie intentionally
failed to disclose to the defense
evidence or information that she knew, or
reasonably should have known, tended to
negate the guilt of the accused. In addition,
Dobbie engaged in dishonesty and conduct
that seriously interfered with the administration
of justice. Specifically, roughly six weeks
before trial, Dobbie received a report that described
several kinds of misconduct by a D.C.
Jail correctional officer who was an important
witness as to the identity of the accused
inmates. Instead of providing the report to
the defense, Dobbie filed it ex parte and under
seal with the court and filed a motion in
limine that purported to describe information
in the report, but the summary of the report
in the motion withheld exculpatory information.
Rule 3.8(e) requires only intent to
withhold disclosure of evidence or information
that a prosecutor reasonably should
know negates the guilt of the accused; it
does not require intent to violate the rule.
Judge Deahl dissented regarding the sanction,
stating he did not agree with his colleagues
that a six-month suspension from
the practice of law was too harsh a sanction
for the misconduct.
In re Bruce E. Gardner. Bar No. 422962. December
7, 2023. The D.C. Court of Appeals indefinitely
suspended Gardner based on disability,
pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 13(c) and (e).
In re Reagan Taylor. Licensed in Tennessee.
December 7, 2023. The D.C. Court of Appeals
suspended Taylor for six months, stayed in
favor of one year's probation with terms for
violations of Rules 3.8(e), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
While prosecuting several inmates at the District
of Columbia Jail for an assault on a law
enforcement officer during a fight, Taylor intentionally
failed to disclose to the defense
evidence or information that she knew, or
reasonably should have known, tended to
negate the guilt of the accused. In addition,
Taylor engaged in dishonesty and conduct
that seriously interfered with the administration
of justice. Specifically, roughly six weeks
before trial, Taylor received a report that described
several kinds of misconduct by a D.C.
Jail correctional officer who was an important
witness as to the identity of the accused
inmates. Instead of providing the report to
the defense, Taylor filed it ex parte and under
seal with the court and filed a motion in limine
that purported to describe information in
the report, but the summary of the report in
the motion withheld exculpatory information.
Rule 3.8(e) requires only intent to withhold
disclosure of evidence or information
that a prosecutor reasonably should know
negates the guilt of the accused; it does not
require intent to violate the rule. Judge Deahl
dissented regarding the sanction, stating he
did not agree with his colleagues that a sixmonth
suspension from the practice of law
was too harsh a sanction for the misconduct.
Reciprocal Matters
In re Kelley Clements Keller. Bar No. 155666.
January 25, 2024. In a reciprocal matter from
Pennsylvania, the D.C. Court of Appeals imposed
reciprocal discipline and suspended
Keller for one year and one day with reinstatement
conditioned upon a showing of fitness
and her reinstatement in Pennsylvania. In
Pennsylvania, Keller was found to have accepted
unearned advance fees from clients, failed
to complete the work she was hired to perform,
and then failed to promptly refund unearned
portions of the fees. She also continued
one representation after she was administratively
suspended, and then falsely certified
that she had no clients or other persons to notify
of her administrative suspension.
Interim Suspensions Issued by
the D.C. Court of Appeals
In re John M. Burkman Jr. Bar No. 463259. December
5, 2023. Burkman was suspended on
an interim basis based on his guilty plea to
telecommunications fraud in the Court of
Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
In re Willie Dennis. Bar No. 430641. December
5, 2023. Dennis was suspended on an interim
basis based upon a temporary suspension
imposed in New York.
Disciplinary Actions Taken by the Board
on Professional Responsibility Hearing
Committees on Negotiated Discipline
In re Pjerin Lumaj. Bar No. 984454. January 19,
2024. The Ad Hoc Hearing Committee recommended
that the D.C. Court of Appeals accept
Lumaj's petition for negotiated discipline and
suspend him for 30 days, fully stayed in favor
of one year of probation with conditions for violations
of Rules 1.5(b) and 1.15(a).
Disciplinary Actions Taken by the
Board on Professional Responsibility
Original Matters
In re Sonya N. Armfield. Bar No. 491717. December
26, 2023. The Board on Professional
Responsibility recommended that the D.C.
Court of Appeals immediately suspend Armfield
pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 13(c), pending
the conclusion of Armfield's related disciplinary
matter charging her with violating
several D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct.
The board imposed conditions to protect the
public while Armfield's separate proceeding
was pending, and Armfield failed to comply
with several of those conditions of practice.
In re John M. Burkman Jr. Bar No. 463259. January
30, 2024. The Board on Professional Responsibility
recommended that the D.C.
Court of Appeals disbar Burkman by consent.
In re Craig A. Butler. Bar No. 451320. January
26, 2024. The Board on Professional Responsibility
recommended that the D.C. Court of
Appeals suspend Butler for six months with a
fitness requirement for reinstatement. In
eight separate client matters, Butler violated
D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(a)
(competence), 1.1(b) (skill and care), 1.3(a) (diligence),
1.3(c) (reasonable promptness), 1.4(a)
(keeping client reasonably informed), and
8.4(d) (serious interference with the adminiscontinued
on page 47
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
MAY/JUNE 2024 * WASHINGTON LAWYER 45
Washington Lawyer - May/June 2024

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Washington Lawyer - May/June 2024
