On Thursday, July 17, 2025, a hearing committee of the District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility recommended a 90-day suspension for attorney Brian V. Lee, with 60 days stayed in favor of one year of unsupervised probation, following a negotiated discipline agreement. The decision stems from a disciplinary case involving allegations of professional misconduct during Lee’s representation of a client in a foreclosure matter.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Brian V. Lee,” with case no. 24-ND-007.
The Hearing Committee Number Nine, comprising Leonard Evans (Chair), Trevor Mitchell, and Janea J. Hawkins, reviewed the case on April 7, 2025. The committee found that Lee violated several District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rule 1.1(b) for failing to serve his client with adequate skill and care, Rule 1.4(a) for not keeping his client reasonably informed, Rule 1.4(b) for failing to explain matters sufficiently, Rule 8.1(a) for making a false statement during the disciplinary investigation, and Rule 8.4(d) for interfering with the administration of justice.
In May 2017, Lee was retained by Kevin L. Whited to defend against a foreclosure action on Whited’s home. At the time, a default motion had been pending against Whited for over two months. Although Lee successfully had the default motion withdrawn shortly after being hired, he missed six of at least 14 scheduled court appearances in D.C. Superior Court over the next six months. Whited was unaware of these hearings, as Lee did not inform him or consult him about the decision to skip them. In January 2018, Lee’s absence at a status hearing led to a default judgment, resulting in Whited losing legal possession of his home.
Lee later acknowledged that he believed Whited had no viable path to retain his property and was only delaying the foreclosure process. However, he failed to communicate this strategy to Whited, leaving him uninformed about the case’s status. Whited terminated Lee’s services in November 2022, but Lee did not file a motion to withdraw until December 2022, which was granted in January 2023. Lee did not explain the withdrawal process to Whited, confusing when Lee appeared at a hearing after being discharged.
During the disciplinary investigation, Lee initially claimed he had not received notice of the missed court appearances, except for one he deliberately skipped. However, evidence from his client file and court transcripts confirmed he had received notices for all hearings. Lee later admitted his intent to miss the hearings and acknowledged his approach was inappropriate.
The negotiated sanction includes conditions for Lee’s probation, such as completing two approved continuing legal education courses on ethics and D.C. practice rules, notifying clients of his suspension and probation, and reporting any new disciplinary matters. If Lee fails to comply, he must serve the remaining 60 days of suspension and prove his fitness to practice law before reinstatement.
Whited submitted a written statement and spoke at the hearing, expressing dissatisfaction with the investigation and arguing that a suspension longer than 30 days was warranted due to the significant harm caused by Lee’s actions. The committee considered these statements but found the 90-day suspension, with conditions, to be justified based on the case’s facts, Lee’s acknowledgment of misconduct, and mitigating factors, including the emotional challenges Lee faced during his husband’s terminal illness.
The recommendation states:
“For the reasons stated above, it is the recommendation of this Hearing Committee that the negotiated discipline be approved and that the Court suspend Respondent for 90 days, with 60 days stayed in favor of one year of unsupervised probation, with the conditions.”
According to Avvo.com, Mr. Lee is a Chapter 7 bankruptcy attorney in Bethesda, MD. He attended the George Mason University School of Law, graduating in 2004. He acquired his law license in D.C. in 2008.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
