In re Naveed

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 23-BG-1001

IN RE MEHAK NAVEED, RESPONDENT.

A Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 1032942)

On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility

(BDN No. 22-BD-022; DDN No. 2019-D191)

(Decided May 9, 2024)

Before: BLACKBURNE-RIGSBY, Chief Judge, and EASTERLY and SHANKER, Associate Judges.

PER CURIAM: The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that Mehak Naveed be suspended from the practice of law for six months with reinstatement conditioned upon a showing of fitness based on its finding that she violated the following D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct: 3.3(a)(1), 3.4(a), 3.4(c), 8.1(a), 8.1(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d). Although respondent filed a non-specific exception from the Board’s report, she has not filed a brief, and she consented via email to Disciplinary Counsel’s motion to proceed on the record. Thus, we grant Disciplinary Counsel’s motion and treat the Board’s report as unopposed.

Under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(h)(2), “if no exceptions are filed to the Board’s report, the [c]ourt will enter an order imposing the discipline recommended by the Board upon the expiration of the time permitted for filing exceptions.” See also In re Viehe, 762 A.2d 542, 543 (D.C. 2000) (“When . . . there are no exceptions to the Board’s report and recommendation, our deferential standard of review becomes even more deferential.”). Because no substantive exceptions have been filed and we

agree that the Board’s recommended sanction is reasonable and appropriate for the violations presented here, 1 we accept the recommendation that respondent be suspended for six months with reinstatement conditioned on demonstrating fitness to practice law. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Disciplinary Counsel’s motion to proceed on the record is granted. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that respondent Mehak Naveed is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for six months, with reinstatement conditioned on demonstrating fitness to practice law. Respondent’s attention is directed to the requirements of D.C. Bar. R. XI, § 14 and their effect on eligibility for reinstatement. See D.C. Bar. R. XI, § 16(c).

So ordered.

1 In re Padharia, 235 A.3d 747, 748-49 (D.C. 2020) (imposing sanction of six months’ suspension and fitness requirement for violation of Rules 3.4(c) and 8.4(d) after Padharia failed to file briefs or comply with court order in numerous cases); see also In re Cleaver-Bascombe, 892 A.2d 396, 412 n.14 (D.C. 2006) (“[A]lthough the court is not precluded from imposing a more severe sanction than that proposed by the prosecuting authority, that is and surely should be the exception, not the norm.”).