time-consuming and ultimately unsuccessful effort to avoid disqualification, requiring the time and attention of the federal court in resolving the motion to disqualify her and in striking the Ferguson deposition ; and (2) Respondent knowingly made false statements under oath before the Hearing Committee and the federal court. We agree with the Hearing Committee that Respondent’s violation of Rule 1.11(a) and the corresponding disqualification motion, without more, does not support a finding that the conduct was a serious interference with the administration of justice. Not every action that requires a court to decide a motion interferes with the administration of justice, even though the court expends resources in deciding the matter. See In re Hallmark, 831 A.2d 366, 375 (D.C.2003) (<HOLDING>); see also In re Reynolds, 649 A.2d 818
holding that the burden is on the plaintiff holding that in appellate proceedings the decision of the trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error holding that the submission of a deficient voucher undoubtedly placed an unnecessary burden on the administrative processes of the superior court and on the presiding judge but a rule 84d violation generally requires egregious conduct or intentional disregard for the effect that an action may have on judicial proceedings holding that an appellate court may not consider an issue not presented to the trial judge on appeal from final judgment on the merits holding that the burden of proving a violation of the idea lies on the party seeking relief during the administrative process