D.C. Attorney Appeals Decision of Disbarment Due to Intentional Dishonesty

In In re Guberman,978 A.2d 200 D.C.(2009), the D.C. Court of Appeals decided to suspend Attorney Mark Guberman for 18 months with requirement that after resumption of practice of law the attorney attend a course on professional responsibility, was warranted, as non-identical reciprocal discipline .

The District of Columbia Bar Rules create a rebuttable presumption that, when a member of the District of Columbia Bar has been disbarred, suspended, or placed on probation by another disciplining court, the discipline will be the same in the District of Columbia as it was in the original disciplining jurisdiction. Bar Rule XI, § 11.The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the referee’s conclusions that the lawyer knowingly made a false statement of fact to a tribunal in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.3(a)(1), 4.1, 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) and intended to deceive the court, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct. 8.4(c).

On April 13, 2006, the Court of Appeals of Maryland disbarred Mark S. Guberman, concluding that he engaged in conduct involving dishonesty and misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct (“MRPC”) and in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MRPC Rule 8.4(d).FN1 After Bar Counsel reported the Maryland discipline to this Court, we issued an interim order suspending respondent from practice in this jurisdiction and directing the Board on Professional Responsibility (the “Board”) to provide its recommendation as to whether (1) this court should impose identical, greater or lesser discipline as reciprocal discipline, or (2) the Board should commence an original-discipline proceeding. In its Report and Recommendation dated November 6, 2007 (“Report”), the Board recommended that we impose non-identical reciprocal discipline-specifically, a suspension of 18 months. We now adopt the Board's recommendation.

Mr. Guberman engaged in conduct involving dishonesty and misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(c) ... by falsely representing to Mr. Cooper and other representatives of the firm that he had filed an appeal in [the client's] case. He engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice [in violation of Rule 8.4(d)] by creating falsified filing stamps on papers, falsely certifying that the papers had been filed in court.