On Tuesday, January 31, 2023, the Office of the Disciplinary Counsel of the District of Columbia admonished attorney Britanny E. Jennings through a letter of informal admonishment.

The case is entitled “In the Matter of Britanny E. Jennings, Esquire.” with case no. 2021-D227.

The charges cited District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct 1.4(a)(b), 1.16(d) and 8.4(d) which state:

A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information

A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

A lawyer shall take timely steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client and allowing time for the employment of other counsel.

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

The Rules of Professional Conduct can be found here.

Allegedly, while representing a client in an immigration case, the respondent insisted on withdrawing her representation due to what she referred to as “irreconcilable differences regarding the legal direction and management of Respondent’s case”. This is despite the several denials made by the judge who handles the case, to the said motion to withdraw requested by the respondent. Moreover, it was alleged that the respondent didn’t tell the client that she was withdrawing and waited to file the withdrawal one day prior to the hearing. The respondent never discussed with the said client whether he wanted to continue her services or not.

The filing states:

“Judge Crews denied your motion and stated that it appeared dilatory. During the December 4, 2020, individual hearing, you appeared over the phone. Judge Crews reiterated that your motion had been denied. You told the Judge that you had a conflict with another hearing scheduled that day and asked for the matter to be continued. Judge Crews denied that request. Judge Crews warned you that if you left in the middle of the hearing, he would refer the matter to Disciplinary Counsel at EOIR. You asked for a short recess to get another attorney from your firm on the line to represent Mr. W.R . After the break, another attorney got on the line and told Judge Crews that you were now on your way to another immigration matter.”

The filing continues:

“Judge Crews denied the motion to continue after the other attorney argued that the firm was not in a position to represent Mr. W.R. that day. Judge Crews asked Mr. W.R. on the record if he wanted your firm to represent him and Mr. W.R . said he did not. Judge Crews referred you to Disciplinary Counsel for EOIR for an investigation.”

The Office of the Disciplinary Counsel decided to admonish the respondent based on the factual allegations and the violation of the above-mentioned Rules of Professional Conduct. Moreover, the court stated that they have taken into consideration that the respondent took the matter seriously and cooperated with the investigation, and accepted their informal sanction. Nevertheless, a sanction was imposed accordingly.

The disposition states;

“This office has completed its investigation of the above-referenced matter. We find that your conduct reflected a disregard for certain ethical standards under the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct (the Rules). We are, therefore, issuing you this Informal Admonition pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, §§ 3, 6, and 8.”

As of today, Ms. Jennings is listed as supervising attorney at Motion Law Immigration. She attended the Charlotte School of Law, graduating in 2017.  She practices in Washington, District of Columbia. She is licensed in the District of Columbia. Ms. Jennings’ info can be found on Linkedin.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.