Disbarment Imposed In D.C. For Crimes In Korea

The long awaited (argued June 25, 2020) decision in In re Wilde was issued today by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

The matter was docketed for investigation in 2009, a mere fourteen years ago.

Both Disciplinary Counsel and Ms. Wilde filed exceptions to the Board’s report and recommendation. Ms. Wilde contends that the Hearing Committee and the Board should have given preclusive effect to a Maryland Circuit Court judgment that found that Ms. Wilde neither committed the theft nor forged documents. She also challenges, on various grounds, the Board’s adoption of the Hearing Committee’s findings of fact. Finally, she argues that the Board should have recommended a less severe sanction than disbarment. We conclude that the Hearing Committee was not required to give preclusive effect to the Maryland judgment; and because we are not persuaded by Ms. Wilde’s additional arguments, we agree with the Board’s recommendation and disbar Ms. Wilde from the practice of law in the District of Columbia.

Disciplinary Counsel argues that the Board incorrectly determined that Ms. Wilde had committed only one of the three criminal acts charged under Rule 8.4(b). Specifically, the Board concluded that Ms. Wilde had committed theft, but that Disciplinary Counsel failed to prove that she had committed fraud or forgery in violation of D.C. law. We agree that the evidence established that Ms. Wilde committed all three criminal acts. Because the Board found disbarment appropriate based on the theft and conduct after the theft, however, we need not depart from its recommendation.

The disciplinary matter involved a conviction that occurred in South Korea. 

In May 2007, Ms. Wilde traveled to Incheon, South Korea, for Teras & Wilde business. Erica Yoon was a passenger on Ms. Wilde’s flight. Ms. Yoon testified before the Hearing Committee that during the flight, a flight attendant woke her and alerted her that the attendant had witnessed Ms. Wilde going through Ms. Yoon’s purse while Ms. Yoon was sleeping. Ms. Yoon testified that she boarded the flight with at least $1,500 in cash but only four $100 bills remained in her wallet at that point. The four bills in Ms. Yoon’s wallet all had a serial number beginning “FL171737.” Ms. Yoon testified that after she and the flight attendant confronted Ms. Wilde, the in-flight purser, Sang Hoon Kim, examined the money in Ms. Wilde’s envelope and stated that the serial numbers for some of the bills in the envelope were sequential to those in Ms. Yoon’s wallet.

As to the Maryland bar proceeding

Ms. Wilde primarily argues that the Hearing Committee and the Board should have given preclusive effect to the Maryland court’s conclusion that she did not commit theft or forgery. Disciplinary Counsel argues that Ms. Wilde waived her collateral estoppel argument because she did not raise it in her post-hearing brief to the Hearing Committee. Even assuming that Ms. Wilde properly preserved this argument, collateral estoppel does not apply here.

Rule 8.4(b)

The Board found that while “overwhelming evidence” indicated that Ms. Wilde forged documents in a fraudulent attempt to defeat the South Korean prosecution, no Rule 8.4(b) violation 29 occurred because there was “no proof” that Ms. Wilde’s actions “emanated from a location in the District of Columbia” such that Ms. Wilde could have been prosecuted under either § 22-3221 or § 24-3241.

We disagree with the Board. Ms. Wilde could have been prosecuted in the District for her fraudulent conduct and forgeries. Teras & Wilde’s D.C. address appears as the recipient address on many of the forged letters. Additionally, Ms. Angha’s D.C. notary stamp appears on the February 15 letter, Mr. Gomez’s D.C. notary stamp appears on the May 5 letter, and Mr. Gomez testified that he kept his stamp in his desk drawer at the D.C. office. Teras & Wilde kept the Worldwide checks in a locked cabinet in the D.C. office—indicating that Ms. Wilde took them while in the District—and those checks included a D.C. return address on the face of the checks and on the envelopes in which Ms. Wilde mailed the checks. For these reasons, we conclude that Ms. Wilde’s actions could have subjected her to prosecution for forgery and fraud in the District of Columbia and thus that she committed the violations of Rule 8.4(b) with which she was charged.

Sanction

In this case, we conclude that disbarment is warranted based on Ms. Wilde’s theft and repeated and pervasive dishonesty.

(Mike Frisch)