Full Opinion

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. 26-BG-0380 IN RE JAMES E. TOLIVER, III, RESPONDENT. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 1619792) On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility Ad Hoc Hearing Committee Approving Amended Petition for Negotiated Discipline (BDN: 25-ND-005; DDN: 2024-D180) (Decided September 24, 2026) Before BECKWITH and DEAHL, Associate Judges, and THOMPSON, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM: This decision is nonprecedential. Please refer to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(d), governing the appropriate citation of this opinion. In this disciplinary matter, the Hearing Committee recommends approval of the parties’ amended petition for negotiated discipline. Respondent James E. Toliver, III, has acknowledged that, in connection with applying for a job, his resume and cover letter contained false statements, and that he thereby engaged in 2 dishonesty in violation of D.C. R. Pro. Conduct 8.4(c). The proposed discipline consists of a public censure with one year of unsupervised probation with conditions. Having reviewed the Committee’s recommendation in accordance with our procedures in these cases, see D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(d), we agree that this case is appropriate for negotiated discipline and “the agreed-upon sanction is justified,” In re Mensah, 262 A.3d 1100, 1104 (D.C. 2021) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted), in light of reasonably analogous precedents. See, e.g., In re Hadzi-Antich, 497 A.2d 1062 (D.C. 1985) (order) (imposing public censure for inflating class rank, grades, and law review involvement on resume to obtain employment); see generally In re Berger, 737 A.2d 1033, 1042 (D.C. 1999) (noting that sanctions for a single instance of dishonesty range from public censure to disbarment). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that respondent James E. Toliver, III, is hereby publicly censured and placed on one year of unsupervised probation, to begin on the date that this opinion issues, with the following conditions: (a) he will not be the subject of a disciplinary complaint that results in a finding that he violated the disciplinary rules of any jurisdiction in which he is licensed to practice during the probationary period; (b) before his probation term ends, he will take two continuing legal education (CLE) courses approved by Disciplinary Counsel: Ethics and Lawyer Trust 3 Accounts and the Mandatory Course on the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct and D.C. Practice; (c) before his probation term ends, he will provide proof of attendance at each CLE within 10 days of completion, waiving confidentiality regarding any consultations associated with training advice and materials, including the materials themselves; (d) during his probation, he will notify Disciplinary Counsel promptly of any ethics complaint filed against him and its disposition; (e) within 30 days of the issuance of this opinion, he will inform Disciplinary Counsel in writing if he has pending applications to practice law in any other jurisdiction; (f) during his probation, he will inform Disciplinary Counsel in writing if he applies for any additional bar memberships; (g) within 30 days of the issuance of this opinion, he will provide Disciplinary Counsel with a list of all organizations to which he has provided legal services in any capacity—whether as an attorney, a law clerk, or a paralegal—and confirm that he has verified none has described his tenure with the organization inaccurately; and 4 (h) within 30 days of the issuance of this opinion, he will provide Disciplinary Counsel with a list of all his social media accounts and other locations that set forth his work history and confirm that he has verified that they are accurate. If respondent fails to meet any of the conditions set forth above, he (a) understands that Disciplinary Counsel may bring formal charges seeking a suspension for his breach of probation, and, if he is suspended, (b) agrees to demonstrate his fitness to practice law before he can be reinstated. So ordered.