In re Robinson

── In re Robinson ── Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals Date: April 23, 2026 Category: General Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 25-BG-0333 IN RE JEAN M. ROBINSON, PETITIONER. A Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 484954) On Exceptions to a Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility Ad Hoc Hearing Committee (BDN: 23-BD-039; DDN: 2023-D134) (Argued January 27, 2026 Decided April 23, 2026) Hilary Holt LoCicero for petitioner. Theodore (Jack) Metzler, Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, with whom Hamilton P. Fox, III, Disciplinary Counsel, Julia L. Porter, Deputy Disciplinary Counsel, and Jelani C. Lowery, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, were on the brief for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Before BLACKBURNE-RIGSBY, Chief Judge, and BECKWITH and SHANKER, Associate Judges. BECKWITH, Associate Judge: Jean M. Robinson, an attorney suspended by this court in 2019 from practicing law for eighteen months, seeks reinstatement to the Bar of the District of Columbia. Following two evidentiary hearings, an ad hoc hearing committee recommended that we deny her reinstatement petition because  2 Ms. Robinson failed to demonstrate her fitness by clear and convincing evidence. For the reasons that follow, we decline to adopt that recommendation and grant her petition. I. Facts and Procedural History This court approved a negotiated-discipline petition that suspended Ms. Robinson from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for eighteen months after determining that she had “intentionally prejudic[ed] her client in the course of the attorney-client relationship, reveal[ed] client confidences or secrets, and act[ed] with dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.” In re Robinson, 207 A.3d 169, 169 (D.C. 2019) (per curiam) (mem.). 1 Ms. Robinson was disciplined for her conduct when she was the general counsel of SourceAmerica, a Virginia-based non- profit that became the subject of federal criminal investigations and litigation during her tenure. Among other transgressions, the hearing committee found that she revealed SourceAmerica’s confidential information to an affiliate, knowing that it would reach federal investigators. She did not violate the rules to benefit herself, but rather because she thought that SourceAmerica would correct its wrongdoing if 1 As a result of those proceedings, Ms. Robinson was reciprocally disciplined in Wisconsin. In 2021, her Wisconsin law license was reinstated after she showed that she was fit to practice by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence.  3 she disclosed the information. After her suspension period elapsed, Ms. Robinson petitioned for the reinstatement of her D.C. law license. At the first of two evidentiary hearings, Ms. Robinson presented the testimony of two live witnesses—attorneys John Daniels, who had known her since she was in law school, and Kelly Kramer, who represented her in proceedings stemming from her misconduct. Ms. Robinson also testified at that hearing. Based on her testimony and proposed findings of fact, the hearing committee became concerned that she had engaged in the unlicensed practice of law years prior in both D.C. and Virginia— and that she was now being evasive about it. Prior to 2004, Ms. Robinson was licensed only in Wisconsin, but she began providing legal services in D.C. in 1990 and in