D. C. Court Hears Bar Discipline Matter

The last case on the oral argument calendar today in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals is an interesting bar discipline matter

No. 19-BG-0674 IN RE EVAN J. KRAME, BOARD DOCKET NO. 16-BD-014, BAR REGISTRATION NO. 370772
Becky Neal, Esquire
Andrew H. Marks, Esquire

The panel

Associate Judges McLeese and Deahl; Superior Court Judge Greene

Our coverage of the Board on Professional Responsibility report is linked here.

This matter arose primarily out of Respondent’s dogged claim to Probate Division judges that his compensation as trustee should be set annually as 1% of a trust’s assets, and that he not be required to account for the time he spent acting as trustee. Respondent also sought to charge his trust clients for a litigation cost and the time he spent pursuing his compensation argument. The Probate Division and the Court of Appeals uniformly rejected his claims. See In re D.M.B., 979 A.2d 15 (D.C. 2009).

…For years, Respondent insistently sought to persuade the Probate Division to allow him annually to pay himself fees amounting to 1% of the value of each Special Needs Trust he administered, regardless of the time he spent working as a trustee. Probate judges and the Court of Appeals uniformly rejected his argument, and ordered him to document his activities so they could assess the reasonableness of his charges.

Respondent, however, refused to accept the legitimacy of those judicial decisions and insisted that he was entitled to a percentage fee: “I was outraged, and I was in my mind serving the justice that I thought I was being denied.” Tr. 2283. The Hearing Committee found that his “inflated self-esteem, intellectual arrogance and anger over” the courts’ rulings “ – manifested several times in his testimony – clouded his judgment” and led him to violate multiple ethical Rules. HC Rpt. at 137. We agree.

Access at this link.

Note that this case involves two docketed investigations

Bar Docket Nos. 2007-D040 & 2012-D449

That means that the matters took nine and fourteen years to reach the court.

Whether by coincidence or design, the court just disbarred an attorney on these facts

The Ad Hoc Hearing Committee issued its Report concluding that Respondent recklessly misappropriated and commingled entrusted funds in violation of Rule 1.15(c), and interfered with the administration of justice by failing to keep adequate records of entrusted funds in violation of Rule 8.4(d). Specifically, the Hearing Committee found that respondent, who was hired to establish a special needs trust to receive the proceeds from a confidential settlement agreement, paid himself attorney fees both prior to the approval of the trust, in violation of the settlement agreement, and after the trust was created, without the required prior approval of the court. In addition, Respondent deposited trust funds into his operating account, the balance fell below the amount of entrusted funds, and respondent failed to maintain records on the trust account, resulting in the appointment of the Auditor-Master to account for and reconstruct the expenditures from the trust with the assistance of successor-trustee and the ward’s family. The Committee recommended that respondent be disbarred. The Board of Professional Responsibility adopted the Committee’s findings and also found that Respondent intentionally misappropriated entrusted funds when he paid himself pre-trust attorney fees. The Board concurred that Respondent should be disbarred. Respondent has not filed exceptions to the Board’s Report and Recommendation.

(Mike Frisch)