On Tuesday, June 6, 2023, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility Ad Hoc Hearing Committee recommended that the charges of interfering with the administration of justice against attorney Kevin J. Mccants be dismissed.

The case is entitled “In the Matter of Kevin J. Mccants,” with case no. 22-BD-044.

The charges cited DC Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(d) which states:

“It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice.”

On September 1, 2022, the respondent submitted his answer addressing the allegations that he had engaged in misconduct that significantly hindered the proper functioning of the legal system. The charges pertained to the respondent’s representation of a client in a criminal case, where he failed to accurately note and keep track of the trial date, resulting in his lack of awareness that the court and other parties involved were fully prepared to proceed with the trial on that day.

The report states:

“The presiding judge directed her staff to telephone Respondent, who asked them whether the June 11 date was a status hearing, rather than the trial date. Once the court’s staff confirmed that the trial was scheduled for that day, Respondent ran to the courthouse and informed the court that (a) he had been attending a continuing legal education class, (b) he thought the trial was scheduled for the next day, but (c) he was ready to proceed. On the day of trial, Mr. Roseboro had not had an opportunity to confer with Respondent to prepare for trial; however, he did not want to discharge Respondent when given the chance by the court.”

The report continues:

“There was back and forth in Court on April 5, 2019, about whether the trial date would be June 11 or June 12, 2019. . . I think I must have written both dates in my calendar and believed we had selected the later date before signing up for a conflict that has gotten me into this trouble. It is critical to the analysis of this case, that the arching issue was that I was at the Mandatory Course for new lawyers on June 11, 2019, not quite sure why Disciplinary Counsel wrote that I was taking a CLE course.”

Disciplinary Counsel argued that the respondent’s conduct was improper because he knew or should have known, to appear for his client’s scheduled criminal trial on time, and he failed to do so. However, the Ad Hoc Hearing Committee of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility argues that there is no clear and convincing evidence that the trial could not have been held on June 11, 2023, after the respondent’s tardy appearance.

The report and recommendation state:

“Having concluded that Respondent’s tardy appearance did not actually interfere with the administration of justice in more than a de minimis way, we consider whether there is clear and convincing evidence that his conduct at least had the potential to cause such interference. In re Uchendu, 812 A.2d 933, 941 (D.C. 2002) (“All that Rule 8.4(d) requires is conduct that taints the process or potentially impact[s] upon the process to a serious and adverse degree.” (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (internal quotations omitted)). Because there is no clear and convincing evidence that the trial could not have been held on June 11 after Respondent’s tardy appearance, we conclude that there is no clear and convincing evidence that his late appearance even potentially interfered with the trial to a serious and adverse degree.”

The Conclusion states:

“For the foregoing reasons, the Committee recommends that the charge against Respondent be dismissed.”

As of today, Mr. McCants is listed as a practicing attorney at McCants Firm. He practices in Washington, DC. He is licensed in the District of Columbia with license No. 493979. His info can be found on LinkedIn.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.