From Craigslist To Proposed Disbarment

A report and recommendation for disbarment of an Ad Hoc Hearing Committee in the District of Columbia

The essence of this case is allegations that Respondent Leicester B. Stovell violated his ethical obligations to his clients and the legal system. According to Disciplinary Counsel, Respondent failed to competently represent a client; failed to diligently and zealously represent a client; intentionally failed to seek the lawful objectives of two of his clients; did not act with reasonable promptness; intentionally prejudiced a client; failed to effectively communicate with one of his clients; and failed to protect his client’s interests when terminating the representation in two instances. Disciplinary Counsel further alleges that Respondent intentionally or recklessly misappropriated funds; commingled funds; failed to deposit funds into an IOLTA account; and failed to keep complete records of client funds.  Disciplinary Counsel also alleges that Respondent breached his professional obligations by engaging in acts of dishonesty and seriously interfering with the administration of justice. We find that the evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrates that Respondent violated multiple Rules of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rule 1.15(a) (intentional misappropriation). As a result, the Ad Hoc Hearing Committee (“Hearing Committee”) recommends that Respondent be disbarred, as no extraordinary mitigating circumstances exist to warrant a lesser sanction. See In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190, 199 (D.C. 1990) (en banc) (disbarment is the presumptive sanction when an attorney “knowingly used his client’s money as if it were his own”).

Respondent made the acquaintance of the four clients at issue in this case through the online services “Legal Match” and “Craigslist” or the client’s own internet search for an attorney. Admitted to practice by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals since 2004, by at least 2013-2014, Respondent had a solo law practice that he ran out of his home and from an office in the District of Columbia. His practice appeared to be quite broad in that, as demonstrated by the four clients at issue in this matter, he handled matters from family court disputes to litigation before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The misappropriation findings involved the use of unearned fees.

Here, Mr. Schrader and Ms. Howard each paid Respondent advance legal fees, and they never authorized Respondent to treat their advances of unearned fees and costs as his own before he earned them. FF 35, 56-57, 70-71. Yet, Respondent deposited Mr. Schrader’s money into his account ending in number 7428 and deposited Ms. Howard’s funds into his account ending in number 6855. FF 33, 67. As explained supra, neither account was “an approved depository and in compliance with the District of Columbia’s Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Account (DC IOLTA) program” as required by Rule 1.15(b). FF 4, 33, 57, 71. Respondent then failed to protect his client funds but, instead, took them before his fees were earned. The record clearly shows that Respondent intended to treat the money he received from Mr. Schrader and Ms. Howard as his own from the moment he received it. Respondent knew he did not have a trust account, deposited the entrusted client funds into checking accounts, and immediately began using the clients’ funds for his own purposes – without regard to whether and how much he had earned.

The case is In re Leicester Stovall and can be accessed at this link. (Mike Frisch)