Consensual disbarment remains a mystery

Listen to this article

Last Monday, the Court of Appeals indefinitely suspended David M. Robaton from the practice of law. On Tuesday, the court filed an order stating that Robaton had consented to disbarment.

The change in punishment, which one attorney who defends lawyers against grievance actions called “bizarre,” is a mystery.

Robaton was disciplined for practicing in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court when his membership in the federal bar had lapsed, failing to represent his client competently and diligently, and failing to disclose his compensation to the court.

“In the present case, Respondent’s conduct warrants the sanction of indefinite suspension from the practice of law,” Judge Mary Ellen Barbera wrote for the court Monday. “As we have done in the cases cited, we shall permit Respondent to apply for readmission six months after the date of this Court’s order of suspension.”

Assistant Bar Counsel Fletcher Thompson, who handled the case, did not return calls for comment on why Robaton agreed to disbarment after being handed a lesser sanction.

Robaton could not be reached for comment. His office number has been disconnected and his home number appears to be unlisted. He has no lawyer, as he represented himself before the Court of Appeals.

“It’s incredible,” said Rockville lawyer Herb Dubin, who regularly represents lawyers before the Attorney Grievance Commission. “The guy got less of a sentence. Unless this … guy is so old that he doesn’t want to practice anymore, I don’t understand what he’s doing.”

“It is strange,” he said. “It is bizarre.”

According to the findings of fact made by the hearing judge in Robaton’s discipline case, a client named Rodney T. Williams hired a bankruptcy preparer to stop foreclosure proceedings against Williams’ home. The preparer recommended that Williams hire an attorney and recommended Robaton.

Williams hired Robaton, but, since Robaton was not equipped to file documents electronically, he prepared documents that his client could file pro se. He should have entered his appearance on Williams’ behalf but did not, the hearing judge found.

A statement of financial affairs that Robaton prepared for Williams asked whether the debtor had made payments to anyone, including a lawyer, about debt consolidation or bankruptcy, but Robaton checked a box marked “none.”

By the time Robaton entered his appearance in Williams’ case, his admission to practice before the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland had lapsed because he failed to renew it.

Robaton also failed to appear in court for a hearing for Williams.

The order of disbarment by consent stated that the disbarment was “[b]ased on the terms of the Joint Petition for Disbarment and Affidavit filed by David M. Robaton in accordance with Maryland Rule 16-772, and the written recommendation of Bar Counsel.”

Rule 16-772 governs discipline by consent.