The Hallmarks Of Flagrant Dishonesty

I am pleased to report that flagrant dishonesty can occasionally get a disbarment recommendation out of the District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility.

The case involved a medical malpractice plaintiff. The case did not go well on the attorney’s watch.

Respondent’s dishonesty bears many of the hallmarks of flagrant dishonesty. He created and submitted a fraudulent claim for legal fees in the “Contents of Attorney Fee and Expenses” document, intended to deceive both Successor Counsel and the court, and he continued to vouch for and swear to its accuracy, even after being made aware of the court’s concerns and throughout these disciplinary proceedings. His dishonesty was motivated by personal gain and is “particularly disturbing” because he acted at the expense of his clients’ interests when, once terminated, he went on the offensive, and filed pleadings against his clients’ interests, including publicly filing a document that had been sealed to protect the interests of a minor child. See Baber, 106 A.3d at 1077. The dishonesty was compounded by Respondent’s woeful lack of competence, which compromised his clients’ recovery and resulted in “likely” prejudice to the clients in the form of dismissed defendants and exposed confidential information. Were it not for the efforts of Successor Counsel, and their ability to secure a settlement, Respondent’s clients would have suffered greater financial harm. Further, Respondent’s lack of remorse, his failure to comprehend  that his representation was incompetent, and his continued efforts to blame Successor Counsel for reducing the potential recovery, are serious aggravating factors.

Whether Respondent’s dishonesty is as egregious as cases in which the Court has imposed disbarment for flagrant dishonesty is a close question, but it need not be answered here because of the serious companion violations. Respondent’s misconduct, taken as a whole, rose to the level of “extreme attorney misconduct” for which disbarment is the only appropriate sanction.

The case is In re Donald McClure. The report ( accessed at this link) was filed on December 31, 2015. (Mike Frisch)