Strict Rule Ups Ante

Enforcing its strict rule concerning sanctions for intentional or reckless misappropriation, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals converted a six months and a day Nevada suspension into a reciprocal disbarment

Although respondent asserts that he was not found to have intentionally misappropriated client funds, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the disciplinary panel’s findings that he “knowingly converted client funds to benefit himself.” The court’s determination that respondent had that state of mind precludes a determination that disbarment is unwarranted because the misappropriation “was inadvertent or the result of simple negligence.” See In re Pierson, 690 A.2d 941, 949 (D.C. 1997); see also In re Addams, 579 A.2d at 191 (“reaffirm[ing] that in virtually all cases of misappropriation, disbarment will be the only appropriate action unless it appears that the misconduct resulted from nothing more than simple negligence”). Lastly, while there is no dispute that respondent paid his clients and their lienholders, this mitigating factor “of the usual sort” is not “especially strong” nor does it “substantially outweigh any aggravating factors,” namely respondent’s prior discipline in Nevada for the same misconduct and commitment of the underlying acts during the earlier disciplinary investigation.

The per curiam opinion was issued by a panel consisting of  Easterly and Howard, Associate Judges, and Thompson, Senior Judge. (Mike Frisch)