In a recent decision, the District of Columbia’s highest local court opted against a severe six-month suspension for two U.S. government lawyers found in violation of professional ethics during an assault prosecution. Instead, a divided D.C. Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to impose a one-year probationary period on Mary Dobbie and Reagan Taylor, former assistant U.S. attorneys.
The allegations against Dobbie and Taylor stemmed from their failure to disclose evidence in a 2007 assault case related to a jail melee. Despite denying the breach of professional conduct rules, the prosecutors faced scrutiny. Writing for the majority, Judge Loren AliKhan characterized the dishonesty as “reckless, not intentionally malicious,” and emphasized that the misconduct was confined to a single isolated case.
The court acknowledged that Dobbie and Taylor admitted to making mistakes, attributing the ethics violations to the collective action and inaction of members within their office. The majority decided to hold a six-month sanction in abeyance, with the option to impose it if the prosecutors fail to adhere to the terms of their probation.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Joshua Deahl argued for adopting the initially proposed six-month penalty, as recommended by the District’s Board on Professional Responsibility. Deahl considered a six-month suspension as relatively lenient, suggesting it falls within an acceptable range of sanctions.
The Justice Department, in a friend-of-the-court brief, advocated for a higher burden of proof, urging the court to require a showing of “bad faith” before finding a violation in the obligation to disclose favorable evidence. However, the court rejected this stance, emphasizing that intentional withholding of exculpatory evidence by a prosecutor constitutes a breach of professional conduct.
Hamilton “Phil” Fox, head of the D.C. bar’s office of disciplinary counsel, welcomed the court’s decision, stating that it reinforces the principle that intentional withholding of evidence violating professional conduct rules is not acceptable. Fox believes the ruling will serve as a deterrent to other prosecutors contemplating similar actions.
The case, officially titled In re: Reagan Taylor and In re: Mary Chris Dobbie, was heard by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals under case number 21-BG-024. For the plaintiffs, Hamilton Fox of D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel presented the case, with Timothy Simeone of Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis representing Dobbie and Alex Little of Burr & Forman representing Taylor.
