Take Him He’s Yours

Sometimes a bar complaint can resemble a ping-pong ball as in this recent informal admonition from the District of Columbia Disciplinary Counsel

In 20 13, counsel for your former client filed a complaint against you with the New York Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department. Although you were and remain a member of the New York Bar, the First Judicial Department believed you maintained an office in D.C. and referred the matter here. In fact, at the time of the misconduct alleged, your office and law practice were in New York City. Your client in the underlying immigration matter also lived in New York and her successor lawyer was a New York lawyer. We subsequently referred the matter back to the First Judicial Department and deferred our investigation pending action by New York. New York apparently did not take any action and we reactivated our investigation. As discussed below, we find that your conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Misconduct

We find that your delay of more than seven and a half months to deliver the client file violated your obligations under New York Rule 1.16( e ). This rule provides that, upon termination of a representation, the lawyer must take steps, to the extent reasonably practicable, to avoid foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, including delivering to the client all papers and property to which the client is entitled…

We also find that your conduct in our investigation violated D.C. Rule 8.4(d). On May 28, 2013, when Disciplinary Counsel wrote you about the complaint, it sent you a subpoena duces tecum for the client file. Although you received the letter and enclosed subpoena, you did not deliver any documents responsive to the subpoena.

The matter is In re Idowu and can be accessed here.  (Mike Frisch)