Heroes And Villains

Sometimes (but not with any frequency) some component part of the District of Columbia disciplinary system performs in a manner that  merits effusive praise.

Today is one of those days.

The case is In re Squire Padgett and can be found at  this link.

A hearing committee chaired by attorney Robert L. Walker issued an 104 page comprehensive opinion recommending disbarment. The report was filed approximately five months after the post-hearing briefing in the matter.

The four charges relate not only to Respondent’s alleged misconduct, but also to misconduct by another attorney named Lathal Ponder, Jr. (“Ponder”), who practiced law at Respondent’s law firm during the relevant time period. Mr. Ponder was disbarred in a separate proceeding in 2012. Respondent does not dispute most of the facts established by Disciplinary Counsel at the hearing of the instant matter, some of which involved Mr. Ponder’s egregious misconduct while employed at Respondent’s law firm. Instead of disputing the underlying facts, Respondent presents a legal dispute about Mr. Ponder’s status at Respondent’s law firm. Respondent argues that at various different times, Mr. Ponder was a subordinate employee of Respondent, then became a de facto partner, and finally a mere co-tenant who shared offices with Respondent. Respondent argues that he had no duty to supervise Mr. Ponder and that he owed no duties to Mr. Ponder’s clients, from the late-1990s onward, because he had no attorney client relationship with them. The thrust of Respondent’s defense is that Disciplinary Counsel’s charges inappropriately seek to hold Respondent vicariously liable for Mr. Ponder’s misconduct, and that a failure of proof dooms Disciplinary Counsel’s remaining specifications about Respondent’s mishandling of client funds and the remaining allegations of his misconduct.

The committee found intentional misappropriation and other misconduct

Disbarment is also the appropriate sanction for Respondent’s protracted, flagrant dishonesty, and his fraudulent conduct. Respondent participated in a scheme to convince the Blounts that they would receive $15 million from a fictitious settlement, he falsely told them that rogues from the Center were engaging in criminal conduct to avoid payment, that bank and law firm computers had been hacked in an effort to delay payment, and that the Blounts were in danger from the Center’s imaginary rogues, and should stay in hiding. While this story was a complete fiction, the damage it caused was not: Ms. Blount and her husband were forced to file for bankruptcy when they were unable to pay debts they had incurred in the false belief that a large settlement payment would soon be provided to Ms. Blount. Tr. 162-63, 197 (Blount). Moreover, Respondent reiterated and reinforced this fabrication even when the Blounts confronted him with contradictory evidence and when he knew that they were taking on debt in reliance on the false payout he promised. Respondent also defrauded American Storage when he paid back rent with checks he knew to be worthless…

A license to practice law is a privilege, not a right. Overall, Respondent’s conduct reflects a continuing and pervasive indifference to his obligations to clients, the judicial system, and the public. It is clear that Respondent should no longer have the privilege of practicing law.

Obviously, kudos also extend to the disciplinary prosecutor in the case.

But this nugget reflects discredit and dishonor on the Executive office of the Board on Professional Responsibility

Between June and September 2014, Disciplinary Counsel submitted to the Board Office proposed Specifications of Charges against Mr. Padgett in four separate matters…The charges were approved by a Contact Member in April 2015 and Disciplinary Counsel filed them with the Board on April 17, 2015. 

So, charges supported by what the hearing committee characterized as overwhelming evidence meriting disbarment sat unreviewed in the BPR offices for at least seven months waiting for nothing but routine review and approval. The attorney got this time to practice and throughout that period the disciplinary system risked loss of evidence and other complications to their proof. 

When I was at Bar (now Disciplinary) Counsel, no charges ever sat waiting review for more than a few weeks. Now delays for this review routinely extend to a year.

I served under five Bar Counsel during my tenure from 1984 to 2001. Every one of them would have raised holy hell about this pointless and dangerous delay. 

Times have changed.

This is truly a scandal and no one – including the District of Columbia Court of Appeals – seems to care at all. (Mike Frisch)