On Thursday, July 27, 2023, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals suspended attorney Marylin Jenkins for concealing her prior discipline while applying for a job.
The case is titled “In the Matter of Marylin Jenkins,” and was bought by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel with case no. 23-BG-0545.
Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
On January 10, 2023, a petition for negotiated discipline was filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and Jenkins. The matter had been brought to the attention of Disciplinary Counsel through a complaint alleging that Jenkins had given false answers in an employment application concerning her disciplinary history. She had applied for a position at Beveridge & Diamond law firm in San Francisco, omitting her D.C. Bar admission and falsely indicating her employment history. The law firm later discovered her membership and reported the matter.
The complaint alleges that:
“Respondent had given false answers in an employment application about her disciplinary history. Respondent had applied for a position in the San Francisco 2 office of the law firm, Beveridge & Diamond. She submitted a resume and completed a questionnaire. Although Respondent had been admitted to the D.C. Bar in 1985, she omitted this fact from her resume. She also omitted her employment as an Associate General Counsel for Litigation at Amtrak, but instead said that she had been employed by Gilbarco Veeder-Root at the relevant time.”
In a report and recommendation of the ad hoc hearing committed, dated June 29, 2023, it was stated that the committee carefully considered the petition, the supporting affidavit, and the proceedings during the hearing. The committee’s findings are as follows: Respondent Jenkins admitted to the misconduct described in the petition voluntarily and without coercion; the allegation against her was that she had provided false information about her disciplinary history in a job application; she acknowledged her wrongdoing and understood the implications of the negotiated discipline; the stipulated facts supported her admission of misconduct, including misrepresenting her bar memberships, employment history, and disciplinary record; respondent Jenkins agreed to the stipulated sanction of a thirty-day suspension, recognizing that she could not successfully defend against the charges.
Considering all these factors and the precedent in similar cases, the Hearing Committee found that the agreed-upon sanction was justified. They recommended approving the negotiated discipline and imposing a thirty-day suspension on Jenkins.
The Supreme Court followed its procedures for uncontested disciplinary cases and reviewed the recommendation of the Hearing Committee. The Supreme Court concurred that the case was suitable for negotiated discipline and that the agreed-upon sanction was fair and reasonable.
The Disposition states:
“ORDERED that respondent Marylin Jenkins is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for 30 days. We direct the respondent’s attention to D.C. Bar R. XI, §14(g), which requires the filing of an affidavit with this court for purposes of reinstatement in accordancewithD.C. Bar R. XI, §16, and Board Prof. Resp. R.9”
Ms. Jenkins practices in San Francisco, California. She is licensed in California. Her info can be found on avvo.com.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.