G Paul Howes

DCCA Order (June 7, 2012)

Summary: Disbarment, effective in 30 days (Amended on 6/7/12 to nunc pro tunc to September 30, 2012)

DCCA Opinion (March 8, 2012)

Summary: The D.C. Court of Appeals disbarred Howes. Howes engaged in multiple rule violations while serving as an assistant United States Attorney in the District of Columbia. The misconduct arose out of Howes’ investigation and prosecution of very serious, high-profile drug/homicide gang cases in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, and in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, as well as his investigation of an unrelated sexual assault. The misconduct occurred between 1993 and 1995 and entailed, inter alia, Howes’ provision of a large volume of witness vouchers to persons not entitled to them, and a subsequent failure to disclose these voucher payments to defense counsel or the courts. Howes violated the following rules: 1) Rule 3.3(a), knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal (Counts I, II, and III); 2) Rule 3.4(c), knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal (Counts I, II, and III); 3) Rule 3.8(e), as prosecutor in a criminal case, intentionally failing to disclose to the defense, upon request and at a time when use by the defense is reasonably feasible, evidence of information that Respondent knew or reasonably should have known tended to negate the guilt of the accused) (Counts I and II only); 4) Rule 8.4(a), violating or attempting to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assisting or inducing another to do so, and/or doing so through the acts of another (Counts I, II, and III); 5) Rule 8.4(b), committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness (Counts I, II, and III); 6) Rule 8.4(c), engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation (Counts I, II, and III); 7) Rule 8.4(d), engaging in conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice (Counts I, II, and III).

DCCA Order (September 30, 2010)

Summary: Howes was suspended on an interim basis pursuant to D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 9(g), pending final action on the Board on Professional Responsibility’s July 27, 2010, disciplinary sanction recommendation.

Board Report and Orders (July 27, 2010)

Summary: The Board on Professional Responsibility submitted its unanimous findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Howes disciplinary case, but it took no majority position as to the appropriate sanction. The board’s vice chair was joined by the chair and another board member in recommending a three-year suspension. In a separate statement, two board members joined in recommending a one-year suspension. Four board members joined in recommending disbarment. Howes engaged in multiple violations of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct while serving as an assistant U.S. attorney in the District of Columbia. The misconduct arose out of Howes’ investigation and prosecution of very serious and high-profile drug/homicide gang cases in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, as well as his investigation of an unrelated sexual assault. The misconduct occurred between 1993 and 1995 and entailed, inter alia, Howes’ provision of a large volume of witness vouchers to persons not entitled to them, and a subsequent failure to disclose these voucher payments to defense counsel or the courts. Howes violated the following Rules: (1) Rule 3.3(a), knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal (counts I, II, and III); (2) Rule 3.4(c), knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal (counts I, II, and III); (3) Rule 3.8(e), as a prosecutor in a criminal case, intentionally failing to disclose to the defense, upon request and at a time when use by the defense was reasonably feasible, evidence of information that respondent knew or reasonably should have known tended to negate the guilt of the accused (counts I and II only); (4) Rule 8.4(a), violating or attempting to violate the rules, knowingly assisting or inducing another to do so, and/or doing so through the acts of another (counts I, II, and III); (5) Rule 8.4(b), committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness (counts I, II, and III); (6) Rule 8.4(c), engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation (counts I, II, and III); and (7) Rule 8.4(d), engaging in conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice (counts I, II, and III).

Hearing Committee Report (August 19, 2009)

Summary: Not yet available.