Bryan Chapman

DCCA Opinion (February 5, 2009)

Summary: The D.C. Court of Appeals issued an opinion on December 31, 2008, suspending Chapman for 60 days, with 30 days stayed, in favor of one year probation within which time Chapman must complete continuing legal education courses in employment discrimination law, federal court procedure, and professional responsibility. The opinion stated that the suspension was to commence from the date of the opinion. On February 5, 2009, the court granted the Office of Bar Counsel’s motion to conform the effective date of discipline with D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 14(f), and issued an amended opinion, striking the language “commencing from the date of this opinion” in the order paragraph of the original opinion, thus making the suspension effective 30 days from the date of the original opinion. Read full opinion.

DCCA Opinion (December 31, 2008)

Summary: The D.C. Court of Appeals suspended Chapman for 60 days, with 30 days stayed in favor of one year of probation within which time Chapman must complete continuing legal education courses in employment discrimination law, federal court procedure, and professional responsibility. Chapman, who was retained to represent a client in an employment discrimination case against her employer, neglected his client’s case and handled it incompetently, resulting in the case being dismissed. Chapman violated rules pertaining to competent representation, skill and care, and zeal and diligence. Rules 1.1(a), 1.1(b), and 1.3(a). The court determined that Chapman’s deliberate dishonesty in his dealings with the Office of Bar Counsel, when combined with the other aggravating factors present in the case, justified imposing a sanction greater than that recommended by the board.

Board Report and Orders (July 30, 2007)

Summary: The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals suspend Chapman for 30 days, with the suspension stayed in favor of a one-year period of supervised probation during which Chapman will be required to (1) cooperate with a practice monitor who will provide quarterly reports to the board and (2) complete continuing legal education courses in employment discrimination law, federal civil procedure, and professional responsibility. While representing a client in an employment matter, Chapman failed to provide competent representation, failed to represent his client with skill and care, and neglected his client’s case. In addition, Chapman failed to prepare his client for her deposition, to respond to the government’s discovery requests notwithstanding his ability to do so, and to propound any discovery to the government. Chapman also failed to send the government’s summary judgment motion to his client and filed an inadequate response in which he effectively conceded that there had been no discrimination on the basis of race. As a result of Chapman’s lack of competent representation and failure to handle his client’s case with diligence and zeal, the District Court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. (Rules 1.1(a), 1.1(b), and 1.3(a)).

DCCA Opinion (May 14, 2009)