The Usual Sanction, The Usual Time

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals applied its strict rule requiring disbarment for intentional or reckless misappropriation of entrusted funds

Upon review of the record, we find no reason to question the Board’s factual findings and conclusions—including the determination that respondent engaged in at least reckless misappropriation of client funds. Because disbarment is the usual sanction for intentional or reckless misappropriation, see In re Johnson, 321 A.3d 642, 652 (D.C. 2024) (per curiam) (“In 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.” (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)), we accept the Board’s recommendation that respondent be disbarred.

Judging from the Disciplinary Docket Number of the case, the investigation began in 2016.

Nine years from soup to nuts in a disbarment case should be a matter of concern.

Notably, the charges involve misconduct in handling a single conservatorship.

From the 2024 Hearing Committee Report

On occasions spanning from September 8, 2015, through October 24, 2015, and from May 9, 2016 through May 25, 2016, respectively, the conservatorship account became overdrawn such that overdraft fees were incurred on the account. FF 40; Tr. 75-76 (Matinpour). Respondent overdrew Ms. Brown’s SunTrust conservatorship account multiple times. These overdrafts led to repeated negative balances, when they fell below the required amount to be held in trust for Ms. Brown. FF 40; see FF 33. Respondent was never able to provide any legally sufficient explanation for why Ms. Brown’s entrusted accounts so frequently had a negative balance.

The committee noted

Disciplinary Counsel investigated these matters for over six years during which it collected Respondent’s various files, bank records, and court filings. On October 17, 2022, Respondent was personally served with the Specification of Charges (“Specification”) alleging that Respondent’s conduct in connection with court-ordered representations of Ms. Brown and Mr. Maillet, violated the following Rules:

• Rule 1.15(a), by engaging in intentional or reckless misappropriation;

• Rule 1.15(a), by commingling through failing to keep entrusted funds separate from her own property;

• Rule 1.15(a), by failing to maintain complete records of entrusted funds; and, •

Rule 8.4(d), by seriously interfering with the administration of justice. Specification at 5 ¶ 17 (A)-(B).

Throughout the period leading up to the disciplinary hearing, Respondent sought to defer these proceedings by filing more than ten (10) separate written motions to stay, enlarge time, delay, or extend proceedings.

The report details the portion of the delay attributable to the accused attorney. (Mike Frisch)