When Brevity Is The Soul Of Wit

A recent report of the District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility is notable in a number of respects.

And, for once, the news is all good.

The case involves four separate docketed matters that were opened for investigation throughout 2013.

Then-Bar Counsel filed charges of intentional misappropriation and other misconduct that were sustained in some respects by an Ad Hoc Hearing Committee.

The committee filed its report recommending disbarment on June 20, 2016.

Then

Disciplinary Counsel took no exception to the Report and Recommendation of the Hearing Committee. Respondent filed an exception, but did not file a brief in support of his exception, and thus waived oral argument. The Board has decided the matter based on the available record. See Board Rule 13.4(a) (a party who fails to file a brief waives the right to oral argument, and the Board will decide the matter based on the available record).

The Board, having reviewed the record, concurs with the Hearing Committee’s factual findings as supported by substantial evidence in the record, with its conclusions of law as supported by clear and convincing evidence, including the finding that the misappropriation was intentional, and with the recommended sanction of disbarment.

The Hearing Committee found ample evidence of misappropriation.  In the Franklin matter, the Hearing Committee found that Ms. Franklin – the mother of Respondent’s client – provided $2,000 to Respondent on May 11, 2011 as a partial payment toward a $3,000 flat fee. See H.C. Rpt. at 23. These funds were to be held in trust until earned. See In re Mance, 980 A.2d 1196, 1202 (D.C. 2009).

Yet, the Hearing Committee found, and we agree, that Respondent transferred the funds from his escrow account to his operating account before he earned them, and thus engaged in misappropriation. See H.C. Rpt. at 81-82. Respondent testified that he reviewed more than 2,500 pages of material before he was paid and, thus, earned the fee. See H.C. Rpt. at 26 n.34. The Hearing Committee found this not credible for two reasons that we find persuasive. First, because that “would require an extraordinary reading speed of between 208 and 250 pages per hour,” which was rendered even less credible because Respondent testified he was looking for“extremely difficult” points of error. H.C. Rpt. at 83. Second, the physical status of Franklin’s files in Respondent’s possession indicated that the records appeared not to have been touched, and there was no other evidence Respondent had done any work on them. Id.

For these and other reasons set forth in the Hearing Committee’s Report and Recommendation, which is attached hereto and adopted and incorporated by reference, we recommend that Respondent be disbarred, the sanction mandated by Addams.

That’s it.

Rather than spend a year or more rewriting a well-reasoned hearing committee report, the board reviews the record and adopts it within a month of submission.

This is truly revolutionary. May this impulse spread like a communicable disease.

And their promptness in the face of the respondent’s appellate default is equally remarkable.

Bravo Board on Professional Responsibility.

 You read that here. (Mike Frisch)