In a decision issued April 23, the court declined to adopt the hearing committee’s conclusion that Robinson failed to prove her present character by clear and convincing evidence. The court held that the committee erred in discounting the testimony of Robinson’s character witnesses based on the professional nature of their relationships with her and the frequency of their interactions.
Robinson was originally disciplined for intentionally prejudicing a client, revealing confidential information to an affiliate knowing it would reach federal investigators, and acting with deceit. The court applied heightened scrutiny because her misconduct was closely intertwined with the practice of law, but found she satisfied the remaining reinstatement factors.
The hearing committee had focused heavily on Robinson’s alleged unauthorized practice of law in the District of Columbia and Virginia prior to her admission in those jurisdictions. The committee viewed her testimony on the matter as evasive and indicative of a lack of recognition that she had violated ethical rules.
The appellate court rejected this characterization, noting the Office of Disciplinary Counsel admitted it was unclear whether Robinson’s conduct violated the rules as they existed in the 1990s and early 2000s, particularly regarding exceptions for federal matters. The court found the hearing committee’s credibility determination unsupported by the record and based on a flawed premise that Robinson knew she was lying.
Regarding present character, the hearing committee had credited two live witnesses—attorney John Daniels and attorney Kelly Kramer—but gave their testimony little weight because they knew Robinson professionally rather than personally and did not speak with her frequently during her suspension.
The court held that there is no requirement for character witnesses to know a petitioner in a personal capacity, nor is frequency of interaction dispositive. The court emphasized that the witnesses were knowledgeable about the misconduct and provided credible evidence of Robinson’s remorse, transparency, and commitment to ethical practice.
Robinson also presented evidence of post-discipline conduct, including completing ethics-focused continuing legal education courses, founding a consulting business where she disclosed her disciplinary history to clients, and performing community service. The court found this evidence bolstered her claim that she possessed a new determination to adhere to high professional standards.
The court concluded that the hearing committee’s reasons for discounting the character witnesses were legally erroneous and that Robinson had met her burden of proving present fit character. The petition for reinstatement is granted.