TALLAHASSEE (Florida Record) — Washington attorney Cary Martin Clennon has been reciprocally suspended following a June 6 Florida Supreme Court order over allegations stemming from his representation in a District of Columbia criminal case, according to a recent announcement by The Florida Bar.
"This is a reciprocal discipline action, based on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals April 5, 2018, order," the state bar said in its July 26 announcement of the discipline and the Supreme Court's order. "Clennon was appointed to represent a criminal defendant on appeal and failed to communicate and adequately represent him, with the court finally vacating his appointment. He also made a false statement to a tribunal."
In its two-page order, the Supreme Court approved the uncontested referee's report filed in the matter before reprimanding Clennon and ordered him to pay almost $1,257 in costs. Clennon's suspension was effective 30 days from the date of the court's order to allow him time to close his practice and protect his existing clients' interests, according to the high court's order.
Florida court orders are not final until time to file a rehearing motion expires. Filing such a motion does not alter the effective date of Clennon's suspension. Clennon was admitted to the bar in Florida on Sept. 26, 2006, according to his profile at the state bar website. No prior discipline before the state bar is listed on Clennon's state bar profile.
Clennon represented himself during the disciplinary proceedings against him, according to the consent judgment filed with the court. The consent judgment also includes Clennon's conditional guilty plea.
In April 2018, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued its order of discipline, handing down a stayed 60-days suspension and a year's conditional probation. The appeals court's order followed its uncontested finding that Clennon failed to represent a criminal defendant after being appointed to represent him, a violation of the federal Criminal Justice Act, and that he made factual misrepresentations to both his client and the court.