## Facts

- Bradford J. Barneys was admitted to practice in the District of Columbia (and also held other bar admissions), but he was not admitted in Maryland.
- Maryland disciplinary authorities determined that Barneys engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Maryland.
- The Court of Appeals of Maryland entered an order disbarring Barneys in Maryland based on that misconduct.
- The Maryland order did not state whether Barneys could later seek reinstatement to practice law in Maryland.
- After the Maryland discipline became final, the District of Columbia disciplinary authorities initiated reciprocal discipline proceedings against Barneys under D.C. Bar Rule XI.
- The matter was set for a hearing before the District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility.
- Barneys did not appear at the Board hearing and did not timely respond to the reciprocal discipline proceeding at that stage.
- The Board recommended that Barneys be disbarred in the District of Columbia as reciprocal discipline.
- When the recommendation reached the District of Columbia Court of Appeals for final action, Barneys appeared for the first time and argued that: (1) he should receive a suspension rather than disbarment; (2) the Board lacked jurisdiction to discipline him for unauthorized practice in Maryland; and (3) imposing disbarment in the District of Columbia would be a miscarriage of justice.

## Issues

1. Whether the District of Columbia Court of Appeals should impose reciprocal discipline (disbarment) based on Maryland’s disbarment of Barneys for unauthorized practice of law.
2. Whether the Board on Professional Responsibility and the D.C. Court of Appeals lacked authority to discipline a D.C.-admitted attorney for misconduct occurring in Maryland.
3. Whether Barneys established any basis under D.C. Bar Rule XI for declining to impose the same discipline, including that reciprocal disbarment would produce a miscarriage of justice or that a lesser sanction was required.

## Decision

- The District of Columbia Court of Appeals ordered Barneys disbarred in the District of Columbia as reciprocal discipline.
- The court declined to reduce the sanction to a suspension.
- The court rejected Barneys’s jurisdictional challenge and held that the District of Columbia’s disciplinary system may discipline its bar members for professional misconduct established in another jurisdiction.
- The court found that Barneys failed to show any recognized basis under D.C. Bar Rule XI to avoid identical reciprocal discipline, including any showing that disbarment would result in a miscarriage of justice.

## Legal Principles

- Under D.C. Bar Rule XI governing reciprocal discipline, the District of Columbia generally imposes the same sanction imposed by the disciplining jurisdiction unless the respondent proves a recognized exception.
- Reciprocal discipline proceedings accept the other jurisdiction’s final adjudication of misconduct; they are not a second trial on the merits of the underlying findings.
- The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has authority to regulate and discipline attorneys admitted in the District of Columbia for professional misconduct committed outside the District, including misconduct found by another jurisdiction.
- A respondent seeking a sanction different from the originating jurisdiction’s sanction bears the burden to show an applicable Rule XI exception, such as a fundamental defect in the foreign proceeding or that identical discipline would be unjust under D.C. standards.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Court of Appeals imposed reciprocal disbarment because Maryland had already disbarred Barneys for unauthorized practice of law, the District of Columbia had authority to discipline its own bar members for out-of-state misconduct, and Barneys did not carry his burden to show any Rule XI basis—such as a miscarriage of justice—for imposing a sanction other than disbarment.


In re Barneys, 861 A.2d 1270 (2004)