On Thursday, November 6, 2025, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals revoked the probations of attorneys John P. Mahoney and Rachelle S. Young, ordering them to serve previously stayed 30-day suspensions. This decision stems from violations of their probation terms, as recommended by an ad hoc hearing committee and concurred with by the Board on Professional Responsibility.
The disciplinary actions against Mahoney and Young originated from separate incidents of misconduct. In June 2024, both attorneys, who practice at the same firm, received disciplinary measures. Young was given a fully stayed thirty-day suspension coupled with one year of probation, due to her failure to diligently and zealously represent clients, keep them informed, comply with information requests, adequately explain matters, and protect client interests during termination of representation. These actions violated D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct and Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct.
Mahoney’s initial disciplinary action involved a sixty-day suspension, 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 Rules.
A critical condition of their probation stipulated that neither attorney should be subject to any new disciplinary complaints resulting in findings of disciplinary rule violations in any jurisdiction where they are licensed to practice. However, on April 30, 2025, the Disciplinary Counsel filed motions to revoke their probation following a disciplinary complaint from a former client, Erica Valdes, concerning an employment discrimination matter against the U.S. Marshals Service. The Disciplinary Counsel alleged that Mahoney and Young violated their probation terms based on Ms. Valdes’s complaint, which led to findings of disciplinary rule violations.
The Court of Appeals granted the 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 these proceedings, Mahoney and Young stipulated to several rule violations and relevant underlying facts.
Subsequently, the Disciplinary Counsel 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.
The Court has ordered that Mahoney’s 30-day suspension from practicing law will commence ten days after the date of the order, while Young’s suspension will begin forty days after the order’s date, effectively starting immediately after Mahoney’s suspension concludes. This arrangement aims to minimize disruption to their firm.
The court delayed the start of Mahoney’s suspension by ten days to allow him time to file a compliant affidavit, potentially making him eligible for reinstatement before Young’s suspension begins. Both attorneys must also file affidavits in compliance with D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) to be eligible for reinstatement, and they cannot be reinstated until a period equal to their suspension has elapsed, following their compliance with section 14.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
