way.” In re Hopkins, 677 A.2d 55, 60-61 (D.C.1996). While arbitral proceedings do perform a judicial function, a Rule 8.4(d) violation requires that the misconduct bear directly on the integrity of the proceedings themselves, not the enforcement of the decision. The cases Bar Counsel cites to show that failure to pay the ACAB award constitutes a Rule 8.4(d) violation all include misconduct that bears directly on the judicial process in a more pronounced way than in this case. See In re Uchendu, 812 A.2d 933 (D.C.2002) (dealing with an attorney who submitted falsely notarized and signed documents to a probate court); In re Mason, 736 A.2d 1019 (D.C.1999) (finding a violation of Rule 8.4(d) when an attorney lied to the Federal Home Loan Bank Board); In re L.R., 640 A.2d 697 (D.C.1994) (<HOLDING>). In contrast to those cases, the judicial
holding that the district court did not err in continuing the trial without defendant when the trial had commenced in defendants presence he vigorously expressed his desire to be absent he was given ample opportunity to change his mind despite the disturbance he had created he had competent counsel and he knew of his right to be present holding that an attorney violated rule 84d when he failed to perform any effective action on behalf of his client holding that an attorney violated mlrpc 84d by faffing to inform his client of the dismissal of his clients complaint holding that an attorney may only undertake to represent a new client against a former client  where there is no confidential information received from the former client that is in any way relevant to representation of the current client holding that an attorney violated rule 84d when he attempted to charge his client whom he had agreed to represent for free because defendants view of the judicial process would be tainted