Flagrant Dishonesty Draws Disbarment

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has disbarred an attorney.

Misconduct as counsel in civil litigation that began with a mistake in transferring funds in a sale of real estate

District Title handled the 2014 sale of Anita Warren’s property. While managing the sale, District Title erroneously wired $293,514.44 to Warren instead of Wells Fargo, Warren’s mortgage lender who was the intended recipient of the funds as the holder of a security interest in the property. District Title asked Warren to return the money, but she had other ideas. She instead transferred the funds to her son, Timothy Day, and other relatives of hers. District Title sued in D.C. Superior Court to recover the money, and Warren and Day hired LeFande as their attorney in the matter. The case was then removed to the federal district court for the District of Columbia.

In 2014, District Title moved in the district court for an injunction to prevent Warren and Day from spending the funds that were mistakenly transferred to them or from otherwise disposing of or encumbering any real property or other substantial assets. The day after District Title sought that injunction, LeFande represented Day as he closed on a sale of real property, and then directed that $82,051.81 in proceeds from that sale be wired to a New Zealand bank account affiliated with a company named Escrow Hill Limited. The Board ultimately concluded that “[d]ue to the absence of any testimony from [LeFande], his clients, or third parties,” there was not substantial evidence showing LeFande himself had the intent to steal District Title’s property. But it is undisputed that LeFande orchestrated the transfer that was clearly designed to conceal those assets amidst pending litigation.

The district court granted District Title’s request for an injunction a few weeks later and eventually granted summary judgment—a monetary award of $293,514.44, the erroneously transferred amount, plus interest—in District Title’s favor. Warren and Day did not pay the judgment, prompting District Title to seek post-judgment discovery for collection purposes. Day and Warren both passed away shortly thereafter. District Title sought to depose LeFande about Day’s property sale and subsequent transfer of $82,051.81 in proceeds to the New Zealand bank account.  LeFande opposed the motion and sought a protective order, asserting his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and further asserting that District Title was seeking information protected by the attorney-client privilege. The district court directed that “LeFande must sit for the deposition,” and rejected LeFande’s request for a protective order, concluding that he could not make a blanket assertion of privilege to avoid testifying. Dist. Title v. Warren, 265 F. Supp. 3d 17, 21-23 (D.D.C. 2017). He would instead need to assert any privileges on a question-by-question basis. Id.

LeFande then refused to sit for a deposition and was held in contempt for that refusal. As the D.C. Circuit summarized in upholding LeFande’s contempt conviction, LeFande did not respond to District Title’s letters, emails, or six separate attempts to make contact via process server. In re LeFande, 919 F.3d 554, 559 (D.C. Cir. 2019). The district court responded to those refusals by directing LeFande to sit for an in-court deposition, which LeFande also tried to avoid. LeFande filed a bankruptcy petition on behalf of Warren in an effort to stay the litigation and stall any deposition, though that bankruptcy filing was later determined to be frivolous, as discussed in the next section.

While LeFande ultimately appeared for the in-court deposition, he refused to take the stand after receiving seven court orders to do so, repeating his already-rejected arguments that the Fifth Amendment and attorney-client privilege allowed  him to avoid sitting for the deposition entirely. The court then found LeFande guilty of criminal contempt and fined him $5,000. The court issued a finding of civil contempt as well, imposing a fine of $1,000 per day until he complied with the order to sit for the deposition. It appears that LeFande has still not complied with the order to sit for a deposition.

The contempt was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Respondent was further sanctioned here for misconduct in the bankruptcy he filed for the client

LeFande failed to appear at that hearing and ignored multiple show-cause orders regarding why he had not timely paid penalties that were ultimately imposed (though he eventually paid them).

There were misconduct findings in another client’s and his personal bankruptcy matters

After District Title sued LeFande in relation to his representation of Warren and Day, and while Disciplinary Counsel’s investigation into LeFande was underway, LeFande filed a bankruptcy petition on his own behalf. The bankruptcy court dismissed the petition after finding that it “scream[ed] bad faith” and was “yet another of [LeFande’s] efforts to manipulate the legal system with no regard for how his vexatious tactics affect others.” In re Le Fande, 641 B.R. 430, 434 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2022). Noting that LeFande had “vanished”—he failed to respond to court orders and to appear at hearings—the bankruptcy court concluded that “there is little, if any, purpose to this bankruptcy beyond simply evading liability to District Title.” Id. at 435.

Failure to participate in the bar proceeding

Before this court, LeFande has not filed any exceptions to the Board’s Report and Recommendation. This court directed that he show cause why he should not be suspended during the pendency of this case, and LeFande responded with a one-page letter stating that he “stand[s] by every single action [he] took to preserve” his clients’ rights and proclaims that he “will not participate in a system that is so fundamentally broken.” He ends the letter with the following: “Please do what you will with my law license, I have no further use for it.”

The court considered sanction de novo due to a 4-4 split on sanction by the Board on Professional Responsibility, with four members favoring a three-year suspension

Considering the entire record and the relevant case law, we conclude that LeFande’s conduct rose to the level of flagrant dishonesty and disbarment is the appropriate sanction. LeFande’s misconduct was “continued and pervasive” over a period of more than six years, with the District Title litigation as the centerpiece of his misconduct. See Johnson, 298 A.3d at 317. LeFande’s misconduct began in 2014, when he directed $82,051.81 of Day’s funds be transferred to a New Zealand bank account immediately after District Title sought an injunction to preclude dissipation of those funds. The apparent purpose of that transfer was to conceal those funds so that District Title could not recover amounts it was due. LeFande then went to great lengths—including by filing a frivolous bankruptcy petition on Warren’s behalf—to evade being deposed in that case after the evidence suggested that he played a role in concealing the funds owed to District Title.

And even after the district court ordered that he submit to a deposition, LeFande refused, impeding the administration of justice and leading to a criminal contempt conviction and civil contempt finding. Moreover, in motions filed in the Warren bankruptcy proceeding, LeFande misrepresented that Warren was the only party in the District Title litigation and disguised the real reason District Title sought to depose LeFande. In two additional bankruptcy proceedings, relating to his other client Simu and himself, LeFande was responsible for a series of frivolous, bad-faith court filings and made baseless accusations against opposing counsel. With these many incidents happening over the course of several years—all reflecting a lack of “integrity” and “straightforwardness,” see In re Mitrano, 952 A.2d 901, 925 (D.C. 2008)—it is clear that LeFande has engaged in a long-term pattern of dishonesty.

LeFande’s dishonesty was also “accompanied by aggravating factors”: his lack of remorse and refusal to either participate in Disciplinary Counsel’s investigation or appear in any of the proceedings before the Hearing Committee or the Board. See Johnson, 298 A.3d at 317. That LeFande cannot be bothered to respond to accusations of serious misconduct weighs in favor of disbarment. See, e.g., In re Moawad, 268 A.3d 820, 821-22 (D.C. 2022) (per curiam) (finding that denial of responsibility, lack of remorse, lack of attempt at restitution, and lack of cooperation during disciplinary proceedings constituted aggravating factors warranting disbarment under flagrant dishonesty theory); In re Howes, 39 A.3d 1, 13 25 (D.C. 2012) (Disbarment is proper “where, despite repeated misconduct, an attorney remains unwilling to show contrition or responsibility for his actions.”). His recent letter submitted to this court—in which he doubled down and proclaimed that he stands by all of his actions—further demonstrates LeFande’s lack of remorse.

Disbarment is also most consistent with our case law.

The unanimous opinion was authored by Associate Judge Deahl joined by Chief Judge Blackburne-Rigsby and Associate Judge Easterly. (Mike Frisch)