Let Us Now Praise A Diligent D.C. Hearing Committee

A District of Columbia Hearing Committee has acted with highly unusual (if not unprecedented) diligence in a case where the hearing was conducted on September 11, 2014.

The committee issued a comprehensive 66-page report last week finding that the attorney had engaged in misappropriation and other misconduct.

The committee recommends disbarment and restitution.

As to the nature and seriousness of Respondent’s misconduct, the Court has recognized that violations involving intentional misappropriation, such as engaged in by Respondent, “strike at the core of the attorney-client relationship by undermining the public’s faith that attorneys will fulfill their duties as fiduciaries in handling funds entrusted to them by their clients.” In re Omwenga, 49 A.3d at 1238. As to instances of misrepresentation or dishonesty reflecting the moral fitness of Respondent, the record of Respondent’s misconduct in both the Anderson and Mills matters is replete with instances of dishonest and deceitful conduct, including: theft, misrepresentations to the court, his clients, and opposing counsel; false statements to the court; and misappropriation of Estate assets to pay his attorney’s fees and to pay personal expenses. As to Respondent’s attitude towards the underlying misconduct, his deliberate failure to participate in the instant disciplinary proceedings, reflects a complete disregard for the Rules and for the process under which he may be held accountable for violations of those rules

The accused attorney had failed to appear to contest the charges.

I’ve seen cases where the attorney failed to contest the charges but it nonetheless  took several years for the hearing committee to issue a report.

The case is In re Jerome E. Clair.

My heroes: Committee Chair Robert L. Walker, public member Kawin Wiliarat and attorney member Margaret Cassidy.

If the discipinary system worked like this on a regular basis, the disciplinary system would work. (Mike Frisch)