Quinne Harris-Lindsey

DCCA Order (May 19, 2011)

Summary: The D.C. Court of Appeals rejected Harris-Lindsey’s petition for negotiated discipline.

Board Report and Orders (July 1, 2010)

Summary: On remand from the D.C. Court of Appeals for analysis regarding whether the negotiated discipline recommended by an Ad Hoc Hearing Committee was proportionate to the disbarment ordered in In re Bach, the board recommends that the negotiated discipline be rejected because the record suggests a substantial question of whether the underlying conduct constitutes reckless misappropriation, for which disbarment is the presumptive sanction. Two board members wrote separate statements. One of the separate statements recommended a remand to the hearing committee and contended that, in rejecting the petition, the basis of the board’s recommendation is inconsistent with the court’s analysis in In re Johnson, 984 A.2d 176 (D.C 2009). The other separate statement, which was joined by another board member, concurred in the board’s recommendation that the negotiated disposition be rejected, but it contended that the question of credibility determinations need not be reached. It also contended that the basis of the board’s recommendation is inconsistent with the court’s analysis in Johnson. The Ad Hoc Hearing Committee had recommended that Harris-Lindsey’s petition for negotiated disposition be accepted and Harris-Lindsey be suspended for one year, with six months stayed and a one-year period of probation to begin at the commencement of the period of suspension, with the conditions that she attend a continuing legal education course and that she consult with the D.C. Bar Practice Management Advisory Service before entering private practice, for violations of Rules 1.1(a), 1.1(b), 1.3(a), 1.3(c), 1.5(f), 1.15(a), 8.4(d) and D.C. Bar R. XI, § 19(f).

Hearing Committee Report (August 12, 2009)

Summary: The Board on Professional Responsibility’s Ad Hoc Hearing Committee recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals accept Harris-Lindsey’s petition for negotiated disposition and suspend her for one year, with six months stayed. Harris-Lindsey also will face one year of probation to begin at the commencement of the period of suspension, with the conditions that she attend a continuing legal education course, and that she consult with the D.C. Bar Practice Management Advisory Service before entering private practice, for violations of Rules 1.1(a), 1.1(b), 1.3(a), 1.3(c), 1.5(f), 1.15(a), and 8.4(d) and D.C. Bar R. XI, § 19(f).