On Monday, September 29, 2025, the Ad Hoc Hearing Committee formally suggested that attorneys John P. Mahoney and Rachelle S. Young each serve a thirty-day suspension due to violations of their probation terms. This recommendation comes after the two attorneys, who are members of the same firm, stipulated to facts that led to the revocation of their probation.
The disciplinary actions originate from separate incidents of misconduct. In June 2024, the Court of Appeals approved negotiated discipline petitions for both Mahoney and Young. Young received a fully stayed thirty-day suspension with one year of probation. This was a result of her failure to diligently and zealously represent her clients, keep them informed, comply with information requests, explain matters adequately, and protect a client’s interests during termination of representation, thereby violating D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct and Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct.
Mahoney, on the other hand, was initially suspended for sixty days, with thirty days stayed, also followed by one year of probation. His infractions included failure to ensure subordinate attorneys complied with ethical duties, failure to take reasonable remedial action regarding ethical failures of his subordinates, failure to comply with client requests for information, and failure to protect client interests during termination of representation, violating D.C. Rules and Maryland Rule.
A key condition of their probation was that neither attorney should be the subject of a disciplinary complaint resulting in a finding that they violated disciplinary rules in any jurisdiction where they are licensed to practice.
However, on April 30, 2025, Disciplinary Counsel filed motions to revoke their probation following a disciplinary complaint from a former client, Erica Valdes, regarding an employment discrimination matter against the U.S. Marshals Service. Based on Ms. Valdesís complaint, Disciplinary Counsel alleged that Mahoney and Young had violated the terms of their probation by being subjects of complaints that led to findings of disciplinary rule violations.
The Court of Appeals granted Disciplinary Counsel’s motions on May 27, 2025, referring the matter to a Hearing Committee and extending the attorneys’ probation pending resolution. The probation revocation proceedings were consolidated for a single hearing.
During the proceedings, Mahoney and Young stipulated to several rule violations and relevant underlying facts. Disciplinary Counsel then filed a Consent Motion to Recommend Probation Revocation, requesting cancellation of the scheduled hearing and recommending probation revocation based on the stipulations. The parties also agreed that the suspensions should be served consecutively to avoid disruption to their firm.
The Hearing Committee’s report detailed Young’s neglect of Valdes’s case, including failure to communicate and respond to discovery requests, which led to a motion to compel and a hearing, which Young failed to attend. The report also noted that Young failed to protect two of Valdes’ discrimination claims. Mahoney, as the managing partner, was found to have failed to supervise Young, take remedial action, communicate with Valdes, ensure representation at the hearing, and protect Valdes’s interests.
Ultimately, the Committee concluded that both Mahoney and Young violated the terms of their probation.
The Committee has recommended that Respondents’ probation be revoked and that they should be required to serve the stayed thirty-day suspensions set forth in the Court’s June 13, 2024 Order. They further propose that Respondent Mahoney should begin serving his thirty-day suspension immediately, and Respondent Young should begin serving her thirty-day suspension immediately after Respondent Mahoney completes his thirty-day suspension, to avoid disruption to the firm.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
