Ten Years After (And Not A Rock Act)

Further proof of the systemic dysfunction of the District of Columbia bar disciplinary system is on display with the filing of a hearing committee report in the case of In re Michael Avery

Disciplinary Counsel  charged Respondent, Michael L. Avery, with violating D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct (“Rules”) 1.1(a) (competence), 1.1(b) (skill and care), 1.2(a) (abiding by client’s decisions), 1.3(a) (diligence and zeal), 1.3(c) (duty of reasonable promptness), 1.4(a) (keeping client reasonably informed), 1.4(b) (explaining matters to a client), 1.4(c) (failure to promptly notify client of settlement offer), 1.5(c) (contingency fee requirements), 1.15(b) (failure to promptly notify client of receipt and to deliver settlement funds), and 8.4(d) (conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice). The charges stem from Respondent’s acceptance of a client representation in a personal injury matter, and delegation of responsibility for that matter to an unsupervised paralegal, who accepted a settlement offer without the client’s authorization.

The Hearing Committee finds clear and convincing evidence to support each of the alleged violations of the disciplinary rules, with the exception of Rules 1.5(c), 1.15(b), and 8.4(d).  Based on these violations, and the factors in aggravation established by Disciplinary Counsel, we recommend the sanction of a 45-day suspension, and that, as a condition of reinstatement, Respondent must undergo an assessment by the D.C. Bar’s Assistant Director, Practice Management Advisory Services, or his designee, (and sign a limited waiver permitting that program to confirm compliance with this condition and cooperation with the assessment process), and must agree to implement the recommended changes to his office practices and procedures.

So far so good.

The date that the Office of Bar (now Disciplinary) Counsel received the client’s complaint: September 25, 2006.

Charges filed: December 29, 2011.*

Given that date, I know well the end-of-the-year pressure to move this Golden Oldie.

Hearing held: March 28 and April 19, 2012.

Hearing Committee report filed: October 12, 2016.

So, five years to investigate and four and a half years to decide a absolutely routine client complaint.

And still no action until after Board on Professional Responsibility and Court of Appeals review.

Wish someone cared even a little bit. (Mike Frisch)

* I do not know this for a fact but the charges may well have sat unreviewed at the Board office for a period of time. That delay would be attributable to the Office of the Executive Attorney rather than Bar Counsel. Such delays of a year or more were not uncommon at the time.