Disbarment Recommendation Comes Over Eight Years After Client Complained

Whenever you look at a disciplinary case in the District of Columbia, it is useful to consider the timeline of events.

In other words, how long is the process taking?

An Ad Hoc Hearing Committee filed a report yesterday that recommends disbarment of an attorney for dishonesty and negligent misappropriation.

As to the dishonesty

Respondent reconstructed a final invoice relating to [her client] Ms. Manago’s case to include time entries that had not appeared on previous invoices that she had provided to Ms. Manago. Respondent also claimed in that invoice to have met with Ms. Manago for 45 minutes on a day that she could not have – when Ms. Manago was at a doctor’s appointment – and on days that her own records expressly stated that a meeting did not occur. Respondent submitted this false document to Disciplinary Counsel, to the ACAB, and to the Superior Court in the lawsuit she filed against her client to vacate the ACAB award. (citations to record omitted)

As to the timeline.

The case involves a single client complaint.

That complaint was received by the Office of Bar Counsel (the name has since been changed to protect the guilty) on April 24, 2008.

The respondent attorney filed a timely response.

Bar Counsel issued a subpoena on December 9, 2008.

Nothing of consequence appears to have happened until charges were approved on March 4, 2015 (note that the charges may have sat unreviewed at the Board of Professional Responsibility office for some period of time).

Hearings were held over several days in September and October 2015 and the recommendation came out on December 8, 2016.

A single complaint. Eight and a half years and counting. Business as usual.

The case is In re Olekanma A. Ekekwe-Kauffman and can be found at this link.  (Mike Frisch)