D.C. Disciplinary Counsel Has New Leadership

The District of Columbia Office of Disciplinary Counsel has its top positions in place with the elevation of Julia Porter to Deputy Disciplinary Counsel.

With Phil Fox and Ms. Porter at the helm, the office is blessed with effective leadership for the first time in decades. 

Thus one will likely see fewer of the cases that take eight or more years to investigate and a decade or more to go from soup to nuts. 

A case docketed for investigation in 2010 has resulted in a hearing committee report proposing a 30-day suspension with fitness and the usual “no harm, no foul” approach to the delay.

Respondent also asserts that Disciplinary Counsel’s delays during the investigation should be considered in mitigating sanction. Delay may be considered a mitigating factor in determining an appropriate sanction. In re Williams, 513 A.2d 793, 798 (D.C. 1986) (per curiam). But, the Court has clarified that the circumstances must be “sufficiently unique and compelling to justify lessening what would otherwise be the sanction necessary to protect the public interest.” In re Fowler, 642 A.2d 1327, 1331 (D.C. 1994). Delays that are necessary to the decision-making process or the result of a respondent’s own actions or inaction do not qualify. Id.

The wrong approach of the accused attorney did not help him

the Hearing Committee has concluded that, at times, Respondent was evasive and was non-responsive to questions posed by the Hearing Committee members concerning his conduct. Respondent avoided responding to questions that might elicit acknowledgment of his wrongful conduct.

As to fitness

Here, Respondent admitted during the disciplinary hearing that he purposefully left earned fees in his IOLTA (FF 41-43, 47), that he lacked an accounting system to track funds despite having a total of six bank accounts for his various business entities (FF 15, 41; DX 2 at Bates 7), and that he had failed to exercise supervision over his non-lawyer employees’ access to his signature stamp for the IOLTA (FF 38). Respondent failed to acknowledge the wrongfulness of this misconduct, and his testimony reflected his failure to appreciate his fiduciary responsibilities for the clients’ entrusted funds. Thus, Respondent’s conduct during the disciplinary hearing raises a serious doubt that he will act ethically and competently in the future when handling entrusted funds. The Hearing Committee recommends that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for 30 standards, and (2) he has taken a continuing legal education class on law practice days. As part of his proof establishing his fitness, Respondent should show that (1) he has sufficient accounting mechanisms in place to comply with Bar Rules and fiduciary management and accounting.

The case is In re Luis Salgado and can be found here. 

Disclosure: Deputy Porter and I were colleagues  at Bar Counsel for a decade, regularly co-counseled cases (see, e.g.  here, here and  here)  and have co-taught ethics courses at Georgetown Law for many years.

I am biased in her favor. (Mike Frisch)