Round Numbers

A District of Columbia Hearing Committee has recommended disbarment of an attorney based on findings of a number of ethics violations including misappropriation.

Respondent did not participate in the hearing.

Respondent accepted advance fee payments through Square and PayPal. DCX 8 at 4-9; DCX 14 at 59-86; Tr. 29, 33-35 (Matinpour). When Square and PayPal routed the advance fees to Respondents trust account, they deducted their financial services fees from the transferred funds. Tr. 34 (Matinpour); see, e.g., DCX 14 at 63-67, 70-71, 76). This meant that the amount deposited in Respondents trust account was less than the amount of the advanced fee the client paid. DCX 10 at 207-208, 215-216, 223; Tr. 33-35 (Matinpour).

Respondent did not maintain client ledgers or other records that showed when client funds were deposited into or withdrawn from her trust account or how much money she held in trust for each client at any given time. DCX 14 at 1; Tr. 28-29 (Matinpour).

Respondent routinely wrote checks on her trust account for round-numbered sums to herself and to Nicholas Wilt, her then-husband, who worked as a paralegal in her firm. DCX 18 (bank statements showing majority of checks written in round numbers); DCX 19 (selected specific examples of such checks); Tr. 32 (Matinpour). Respondent did not indicate on the checks, or anywhere else, which clients advanced legal fees were being withdrawn from the trust account. DCX 19; Tr. 32 (Matinpour).

Respondent also used the funds in her trust account to pay for personal and/or business operating expenses. Tr. 29-31 (Matinpour); DCX 18 at 17, 21-22, 29, 35, 39, 42.

On June 22, 2020, Respondent should have been holding at least $7,881.59 in trust for nine clients Eric Birts ($1,792.50), Michael Ceres ($350.77), Rita Collins ($625.00), April Davis ($62.50), Seon French ($2,000.00), Marisa Jennings ($1,000.00), Tabatha McNeill ($26.08), James Scholler ($687.50), and Darrell Shipman ($1,337.24) but the balance in her trust account was $1,347.64. DCX 17 at 1-4, 7-13, 17, 22, 27; DCX 18 at 31; DCX 20 at 1-4, 6-7; Tr. 36-42 (Matinpour).

An overdraft notice brought the attention of Disciplinary Counsel.

Proposed sanction

The law regarding misappropriation is clear and consistent: absent extraordinary circumstances, disbarment is the presumptive sanction for intentional or reckless misappropriation. In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190, 191 (D.C. 1990) (en banc) ( [I]n virtually all cases of misappropriation, disbarment will be the only appropriate sanction unless it appears that the misconduct resulted from nothing more than simple negligence. ); see also In re Hewett, 11 A.3d 279, 286 (D.C. 2011). We discern no extraordinary circumstances or substantial mitigating factors to rebut the presumption of disbarment. And we further recommend that, should Respondent seek reinstatement, she should be required to prove her payment of restitution of $4,000.00 to Ms. Washington and $4,780.97 to the CSF. See FF 30, 42-43. See In re Hager, 812 A.2d 904, 922-23 (D.C. 2002) (disgorgement may be imposed as a reasonable condition of reinstatement under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 3(b) to prevent unjust enrichment).

(Mike Frisch)