The District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility proposes suspension with automatic reinstatement for misconduct found in two petitioned sets of cases.
The board noted the disparate views of the parties
Disciplinary Counsel argues that a severe sanction is warranted because Respondent repeatedly took advantage of vulnerable clients by requiring that they pay him substantial advance fees, and then failed to communicate with those clients or work on their cases. Disciplinary Counsel further asserts that Respondent retaliated against Ms. Cooper by refusing to satisfy the ACAB fee award in her favor, forcing her to apply to the Client Security Fund for reimbursement, and by filing a $2 million lawsuit against her for allegedly making defamatory statements during the ACAB arbitration and in connection with disciplinary proceedings. Disciplinary Counsel further argues that Respondent testified falsely at the hearing by claiming that he arranged a conference call with Mr. Strange while the client was in prison. The Hearing Committee did not credit Respondent’s testimony on that point, but did not find that he testified falsely.
Respondent disputes Disciplinary Counsel’s characterization of his conduct, and asserts that he did not deliberately withhold information from his clients. He notes that he voluntarily dismissed his lawsuit against Ms. Cooper after researching the defamation issue and discovering that statements made in ACAB proceedings are privileged. Respondent also denies Disciplinary Counsel’s allegation that he lied at the hearing with respect to the Strange case.
The first charges came after the attorney had rejected a proposed informal admonition. The board here refused to consider “add on” charges brought in that matter due to a board rule.
As noted above, the Board does not consider uncharged conduct that was excluded pursuant to Board Rule 6.4 in Lattimer I. But Respondent’s retaliation against Ms. Cooper by filing a meritless defamation lawsuit one month after she testified against him in disciplinary proceedings, failing to pay the arbitration award in a timely manner, and forcing her to apply to the Client Security Fund for reimbursement, all occurred after the time of the proposed informal admonition. Hearing Committee I found, and we agree, that Respondent’s frivolous lawsuit against Ms. Cooper is “particularly disturbing” – a significant aggravating factor that makes Lattimer I stand apart from those Rule 1.4 cases in which no suspension was imposed.
Translation: we are not considering something we are considering.
And automatic reinstatement because – Disciplinary Counsel
Disciplinary Counsel contends that a fitness requirement is appropriate, but does not address Respondent’s present character or competence to practice law.
Respondent has practiced law for more than thirty-three years, twenty-four of which as a solo practitioner. Although we are concerned about Respondent’s failure to acknowledge wrongdoing, Disciplinary Counsel has not demonstrated on clear and convincing evidence a serious doubt about Respondent’s continuing fitness to practice after a fixed period of suspension.
The case is In re Gregory Lattimer ans can be found at this link.
The Lattimer I investigations began in 2009. Lattimer II stated in 2011.
It should take a lot less time for cases such as these to get resolved. And we are only 2/3 of the way to completion. (Mike Frisch)