Bankrupt In D. C.

An ad hoc District of Columbia Hearing Committee has found that an attorney engaged is serious misconduct in a bankruptcy proceeding

 This disciplinary proceeding arises out of Leslie Silverman’s (“Respondent’s”) handling of a bankruptcy matter. Respondent was contacted by Theresa Lawson for bankruptcy advice and ultimately filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition as counsel for Theresa Lawson’s then-husband, Michael Lawson. However, Respondent never spoke with Michael Lawson before filing the petition and did not communicate with him thereafter about the status of the bankruptcy matter. She communicated primarily with Theresa Lawson and filed the petition on her instruction. Moreover, Respondent filed the petition knowing that information therein was inaccurate and/or incomplete, knowing that information contained therein made the petitioner ineligible for Chapter 13 relief, and without having obtained Michael Lawson’s signature on the original petition and other documents as required by the Bankruptcy Court rules. While Respondent claims to have acted pursuant to a power of attorney in favor of Theresa Lawson, there is no evidence that such a document ever existed. The only power of attorney in Respondent’s client file was in favor of a  different person, with whom Respondent never communicated.

These initial problems with the bankruptcy filing spiraled into multiple instances of dishonesty. Respondent made representations to the Bankruptcy Court regarding her authority to file the petition, which the Bankruptcy Court accepted as true. Such representations, however, were not true. After the Bankruptcy Court dismissed the petition, sanctioned Respondent for filing “inappropriate papers,” and filed a complaint against her, Respondent made similar representations to Bar Counsel during its investigation of this matter. Those representations also were not true.

After an investigation, Bar Counsel charged Respondent with violating the following District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct (the “Rules”): 1.1(a) and/or (b) (competence, skill and care); Rule 1.4(a) and (b) (communication and failure to explain matter to client); Rule 3.1 (pursuing an action or claim that had no basis in law and fact); Rule 3.3(a)(1) (knowing false statement to a tribunal); Rule 8.1(a) (false statement in connection with a disciplinary matter); Rule 8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and/or misrepresentation); and Rule 8.4(d) (conduct seriously interfering with the administration of justice).

…the Hearing Committee finds by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated each of these rules. We recommend that she be suspended for three years and that she be required to prove her fitness to practice prior to reinstatement.

Notably, the hearing committee took three years to produce the report. Having said that, it is a very well-written and well-reasoned analysis of the ethics issues.

The attorney – Leslie Silverman – is also a respondent in the probate case that I have blogged about, now on remand to the Board on Professional Responsibility.

Also worthy of note is the similarity of the conduct here and in the probate case – abusing the law to take advantage of a so-called “client” for the benefit of another.

Perhaps there is a small measure of justice here missing from the lamentably- mishandled (by all but the Office of Bar Counsel) prior case. (Mike Frisch)