Credit Charges

Reckless misappropriation drew disbarment from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In light of our conclusion that Mr. Johnson committed reckless misappropriation requiring disbarment, we need not decide whether Mr. Johnson also committed other violations. See, e.g., In re Doman, 314 A.3d 1219, 1224 (D.C. 2024) (per curiam) (declining to decide whether other violations were proven where “the answer to that question would not affect the sanction we impose”). Also, Mr. Johnson does not dispute in this court that he misappropriated entrusted funds, instead arguing only that his misappropriation was negligent rather than reckless. We therefore focus our discussion in this opinion solely on the question whether Mr. Johnson engaged in reckless misappropriation requiring disbarment.

Respondent accepted payments by American Express credit cards

Mr. Johnson was aware that acceptance of credit-card payments into the trust account and the processing fees deducted from that account created a deficit that required reimbursement. In 2016, Mr. Johnson became aware that his accountant was not reconciling the trust account and that there was a deficit. In October 2016, Mr. Johnson sent the accountant an email stating, “I need to cut a check to replenish the trust account for bounced check fees and credit card costs. Please let me know the amount. Thanks.” The accountant did not respond to Mr. Johnson’s email and “kind of blew it off.” From approximately March 2015 to December 2018, no checks were deposited to reimburse the trust account for the monthly credit-card fees and bank charges that were being deducted. In his testimony before the Hearing Committee, Mr. Johnson acknowledged that he had made a mistake with respect to his supervision of the accountant.

Over $30,000 in credit-card fees was deducted from the trust account from January 2015 through February 2019. In November 2018, Mr. Johnson wrote six checks from the trust account that were returned for insufficient funds. On November 21, 2018, the balance in the trust account was less than $5. In November 2018, Mr. Johnson was supposed to be holding tens of thousands of dollars in the trust account.

A hearing committee found that the misappropriation was negligent; the Board on Professional Responsibility disagreed, found recklessness, and recommended disbarment.

The court here rejected Respondent’s challenges to the evidence and concluded

We conclude that Mr. Johnson has not rebutted the presumption of disbarment. This case is not meaningfully different from cases in which this court has held that similar, or even more sympathetic, circumstances were insufficient to rebut the presumption of disbarment applicable to reckless misappropriation.

The per curiam decision was by a division consisting of BECKWITH, MCLEESE, and HOWARD, Associate Judges.