Misappropriation is an area in which the entire disciplinary system
has been very aggressive. From disbarments by the D.C. Court of Appeals
based upon recommendations by the Board on Professional Responsibility,
to sophisticated investigation techniques now employed by the Office
of Bar Counsel, attorney theft remains an important focus of the disciplinary
system.
Our 2005 data show that attorneys admitted to the D.C. Bar in the late
1980s to the early 1990s are the ones getting in trouble. At one point
we calculated that attorneys 9 to 16 years into their professional career
are most at risk. With the rare exception, this statistic seems to be
holding true.
Delay in the disciplinary system has been on everyone’s mind
for the past several years. We have made progress at all levels of the
system. Cases under investigation by the Office of Bar Counsel that
are over 90 days old have been reduced from a high of 382 in August
2004 to a low of 256 in November 2005. (The number stood at 259 as of
January 31, 2006.) We have completed all cases that came in prior to
2002. The Board on Professional Responsibility, which has had a very
productive year moving cases that have come before it, has virtually
eliminated delay at the hearing committee level. The Court of Appeals
has been issuing opinions in record time.
Although all this is good news, much more needs to be done. The D.C.
Bar’s Disciplinary System Study Committee (Payton-Goldfrank Committee)
has just released for public comment its report on recommended changes
to the disciplinary system. (See story on page 17.) Please take the
time to review it. All suggestions will be welcomed by the committee
and the disciplinary system. The Board on Professional Responsibility
and the Office of Bar Counsel are reviewing techniques and organization
of bar counsel offices nationwide. We hope to have some proposed changes
in place by July 1.
The goals of the disciplinary system are to protect the public from
unethical attorneys, to protect attorneys from unfounded complaints,
and to protect the image and integrity of the legal community. The disciplinary
system is dedicated to those goals. We will build upon what 2005 has
taught us. We are available to any group, legal or public, that wants
education, a speaker, or information on the services that we provide.
(Call Lawrence Bloom, staff attorney in charge of our speakers bureau,
at 202-638-1501 to arrange for a speaker.)
We hope 2006 brings fewer complaints, less misconduct, and no letters
to you from the Office of Bar Counsel.
Disciplinary Actions Taken by the Board on Professional Responsibility
Original Matters
In re Frederic D. Leffler. Bar No. 388671. December 23, 2005. The Board
on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals
disbar Leffler. Leffler was convicted in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland of six counts of mail fraud in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2 and 11 counts of wire fraud in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2, crimes involving moral
turpitude per se, for which disbarment is mandatory under D.C. Code
§ 11-2503(a) (2001).
In re Thomas P. Liniak. Bar No. 411968. December 8, 2005. The Board
on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals
disbar Liniak by consent, nunc pro tunc to August 8, 2005.
In re Phyllis J. Outlaw. Bar No. 317537. December 23, 2005. The Board
on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals
suspend Outlaw for 60 days. Outlaw failed to provide competent and diligent
representation; failed to communicate; failed to take prompt action
to preserve her client’s interests before the expiration of a
statute of limitations; and concealed the errors from her client. Rules
1.1(a), 1.1(b), 1.3(a), 1.4(a), 1.4(b), and 8.4(c).
In re Gregg M. Paley. Bar No. 417303. December 23, 2005. The Board
on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals
disbar Paley by consent.
In re Patrick J. Smith. Bar No. 296822. December 23, 2005. The Board
on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals
disbar Smith. Smith was found guilty in the Circuit Court for Montgomery
County, Maryland, of intimidating a witness in violation of Maryland
Criminal Code § 9-305 and impersonating a police officer in violation
of Maryland Public Safety Code § 3-502(b). The board concluded
that Smith’s conviction for intimidating a witness through threats,
force, or corrupt means involved moral turpitude per se, for which disbarment
is mandatory under D.C. Code § 11-2503(a) (2001).
In re Edward L. Tezak. Bar No. 429121. December 23, 2005. The Board
on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals
disbar Tezak. Tezak was convicted in the United States Court for the
Western District of Washington of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1343 and 2 and money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1956(a)(1)(B). The board concluded that Tezak’s conviction
for wire fraud involved moral turpitude per se, for which disbarment
is mandatory under D.C. Code § 11-2503(a) (2001).
Reciprocal Matters
In re Richard G. Cervizzi. Bar No. 938282. December 23, 2005. In a reciprocal
matter from Maine, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends
that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose identical reciprocal discipline
and disbar Cervizzi. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court disbarred Cervizzi.
In its order of disbarment, the Maine court found, among other things,
that (1) upon receiving notice that he had been summarily suspended
from the practice of law for his failure to comply with his Maine tax
obligations, Cervizzi failed to inform his clients, courts, opposing
counsel, or other required individuals or agencies of that suspension;
(2) thereafter Cervizzi failed to assist many of his clients to obtain
new counsel and abandoned most of his clients and the legal matters
they had entrusted to him; (3) Cervizzi repeatedly ignored the Maine
board and Bar Counsel’s efforts to contact him about grievances
filed against him and the whereabouts of clients’ files; (4) in
at least two matters, Cervizzi continued to represent clients in court
in direct violation of his suspension notice; (5) in one of those matters,
a pending criminal case, Cervizzi signed a document that made it appear
that he had signed the document before he had been suspended from practice;
(6) in another case, Cervizzi signed a document setting forth his obligation
to disburse fees and charges totaling approximately $1,000 to a mortgage
broker concerning a loan transaction for which he acted as settlement
agent with no evidence that he ever made the required payment; (7) Cervizzi
failed to comply timely with the court’s order for custody of
files requiring him to turn over his former clients’ files to
Bar Counsel; and (8) Cervizzi abandoned each of the four clients who
testified at the hearing, refusing to respond to inquiries by each of
the four, and refusing to return files or documents to his clients.
In re John W. Hermina. Bar No. 421790. December 23, 2005. In a reciprocal
matter from Maryland, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends
that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose functionally identical reciprocal
discipline and publicly censure Hermina. The Court of Appeals of Maryland
publicly reprimanded Hermina for making false statements of material
fact to a tribunal; knowingly disobeying obligations under rules of
the tribunal; making a false statement as to the qualification or integrity
of a judge; violating rules of professional conduct; conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and conduct prejudicial
to the administration of justice.
In re David A. Jones. Bar No. 223933. December 28, 2005. In a reciprocal
matter from Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, the Board on Professional
Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose identical
reciprocal discipline and disbar Jones, nunc pro tunc to November 8,
1999. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania disbarred Jones for ethical
misconduct over six years in three separate charges regarding his defense
or prosecution of civil actions on his own behalf or on behalf of his
wife. Jones made nonmeritorious claims and contentions, knowingly made
false statements to a tribunal, and engaged in dishonesty and conduct
prejudicial to the administration of justice. The Supreme Judicial Court
for Suffolk County, Massachusetts, disbarred Jones on the basis of his
Pennsylvania discipline.
In re Mark D. Mestel. Bar No. 928200. December 23, 2005. In a reciprocal
matter from Washington State, the Board on Professional Responsibility
recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose functionally identical
reciprocal discipline and issue Mestel a board reprimand. The Disciplinary
Board of the Washington State Bar Association issued a disciplinary
order reprimanding Mestel, by stipulation, for jointly representing
two clients with regard to the same matter “without consulting
them about the implications and risks of the multiple representation,
and by failing to obtain written conflict waivers.”
In re Sang K. Park. Bar No. 416551. December 28, 2005. In two consolidated
reciprocal matters from Virginia, the Board on Professional Responsibility
recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals suspend Park for six months,
nunc pro tunc to December 9, 2004. In the first matter, Park was retained
to represent a client in an immigration proceeding and was found by
the Virginia State Disciplinary Board to have engaged in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that reflects adversely
on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law; held himself out publicly
as, or implied that he was, a recognized or certified specialist (outside
of the exception to the rule); and failed to attend promptly to matters
undertaken for a client until completed. In the second matter, Park
was retained for the preparation, execution, and subsequent probate
of a will and the preparation of a visa application. The Virginia board
found that he engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit,
or misrepresentation, and that he failed to act with competence and
to demonstrate the specific legal knowledge, skill efficiency, and thoroughness
in preparation employed in acceptable practice by lawyers undertaking
similar matters. Three members of the board concurred with the opinion
of the majority concerning the sanction, but dissented with regard to
the nunc pro tunc treatment.
In re Oscar W. Weekes. Bar No. 446257. January 20, 2006. In a reciprocal
matter from Massachusetts, the Board on Professional Responsibility
recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals hold this matter in abeyance
until final action by a Massachusetts disciplinary court, that Bar Counsel
notify the court of such final action, and that the interim suspension
of Weekes remain in effect until the issue of the imposition of reciprocal
discipline can be determined under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11. Weekes
was temporarily suspended from the practice of law by the Supreme Judicial
Court of Massachusetts.
In re N. Jerome Willingham. Bar No. 379780. December 20, 2005. In a
reciprocal matter from North Carolina, the Board on Professional Responsibility
recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose identical reciprocal
discipline and disbar Willingham. The Disciplinary Hearing Commission
of the North Carolina State Bar found that from approximately March
2002 to January 2004 Willingham misappropriated client funds in three
separate matters and engaged in other misconduct over a substantial
period of time, including conduct involving dishonesty, conflict of
interest, and ignoring or obstructing a disciplinary investigation.
In re Robert Joel Zakroff. Bar No. 163337. December 28, 2005. In a
reciprocal matter from Maryland, the Board on Professional Responsibility
recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose identical reciprocal
discipline and disbar Zakroff. The Maryland Court of Appeals disbarred
Zakroff on the basis of two separate complaints: one involving misappropriation
of client funds and another involving the mishandling of a bankruptcy
matter.
In re Carl E. Zentz. Bar No. 196568. December 14, 2005. On the basis
of discipline imposed by the Maryland Court of Appeals and the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland, the Board on Professional
Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose functionally
identical discipline and publicly censure Zentz. The Maryland Court
of Appeals reprimanded Zentz by consent for his violation of the Maryland
Rules of Professional Conduct pertaining to competence, scope of representation,
meritorious claims and contentions, candor toward tribunals, knowingly
disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, unauthorized
practice of law, inducing or assisting another to violate the rules
of professional conduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice. The Maryland District Court reprimanded Zentz
for the same conduct and barred him from practice in any bankruptcy
court of the United States.
Disciplinary Actions Taken by the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals
Original Matters
In re Gene P. Belardi. Bar No. 218446. January 26, 2006. The D.C. Court
of Appeals suspended Belardi for one year. Belardi entered a guilty
plea in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
to three counts of making false statements to a government agency, a
crime that did not constitute moral turpitude per se.
In re Beth Ann Carpenter. Bar No. 438529. January 19, 2006. The D.C.
Court of Appeals disbarred Carpenter. Carpenter was found guilty by
a Connecticut jury of capital felony, murder as an accessory, and conspiracy
to commit murder, crimes involving moral turpitude per se, for which
disbarment is mandatory under D.C. Code § 11-2503(a) (2001).
In re Rozan E. Cater. Bar No. 420942. December 1, 2005. The D.C. Court
of Appeals suspended Cater for 90 days, to be served consecutively with
the 180-day period of suspension in Cater I, with reinstatement conditioned
upon full compliance with Bar Counsel’s requests for information
and a showing that she is fit to resume the practice of law. Cater failed
to respond to Bar Counsel’s inquiries and board orders to compel
such responses in connection with four disciplinary investigations.
Rules 8.1(b) and 8.4(d) and D.C. Bar R. XI, § 2(b)(3).
In re Thomas P. Liniak. Bar No. 411968. December 28, 2005. The D.C.
Court of Appeals disbarred Liniak by consent, nunc pro tunc to August
8, 2005.
In re Gregg M. Paley. Bar No. 417303. January 26, 2006. The D.C. Court
of Appeals disbarred Paley by consent.
In re Billy L. Ponds. Bar No. 379883. December 15, 2005. The D.C. Court
of Appeals suspended Ponds for 30 days, with reinstatement conditioned
upon his filing with the Board on Professional Responsibility and Bar
Counsel a certification that he has completed a continuing legal education
course on legal ethics or criminal practice covering conflicts of interest.
Ponds violated Rules 1.7(b) (conflict of interest) and 1.16(a)(1) (failure
to withdraw when necessary to avoid violation of the rules) of the Maryland
Rules of Professional Conduct, made applicable by D.C. Rule 8.5(b)(1)
(choice of law), while representing a client in a criminal proceeding
before the U.S. District Court of Maryland.
In re Steven R. Sager. Bar No. 449132. December 8, 2005. The D.C. Court
of Appeals disbarred Sager by consent, effective forthwith.
In re Julia A. Soininen. Bar No. 448700. December 22, 2005. The D.C.
Court of Appeals disbarred Soininen, stayed upon a showing of Kersey
mitigation, and placed her on three years’ probation subject to
the conditions imposed by the Board on Professional Responsibility in
its report and recommendation. Soininen failed to provide competent
representation, failed to serve a client with skill and care, charged
an unreasonable fee, engaged in reckless misappropriation, and engaged
in conduct that seriously interfered with the administration of justice
in connection with her service as guardian and conservator to a client
and the client’s estate between 1997 and 2000. Rules 1.1(a), 1.1(b),
1.5(a), 1.15(a), and 8.4(d).
Reciprocal Matters
In re Steven M. Angel. Bar No. 405417. December 22, 2005. In a consolidated
reciprocal matter from Oklahoma, the D.C. Court of Appeals publicly
censured Angel in one matter and suspended him for five years with fitness
in another matter. The Oklahoma Supreme Court publicly reprimanded Angel
in the first matter. Thereafter, faced with 13 additional grievances
under investigation in Oklahoma, and claiming mental distress caused
by family illness, Angel tendered his resignation from the practice
of law in Oklahoma. The Oklahoma court approved Angel’s resignation
and directed him to reimburse the Client Security Fund for any money
disbursed because of his conduct, struck his name from the roll of attorneys,
and prohibited him from applying for reinstatement for five years.
In re Timothy Brown. Bar No. 366743. January 19, 2006. In a reciprocal
matter from Maryland, the D.C. Court of Appeals imposed nonidentical
reciprocal discipline and suspended Brown for 30 days, nunc pro tunc
to March 16, 1994, with reinstatement conditioned upon his compliance
with the restitution requirement imposed in Maryland. The Maryland Court
of Appeals indefinitely suspended Brown, with conditions for reinstatement,
on the basis of a joint petition. In that petition Brown effectively
admitted that he charged his client an excessive fee; failed to respond
to attempts to contact him; failed to return an unearned fee; failed
to put a retainer in a separate account; and failed to respond to the
Attorney Grievance Commission’s inquiries regarding his client’s
complaint. This reciprocal matter, which had been dismissed without
prejudice in 1994 after the court imposed an indefinite suspension upon
Brown “on account of disability, that disability having resulted
from the respondent’s long-term abuse of alcohol, marijuana, and
cocaine,” was reactivated after Brown was conditionally reinstated
to the practice of law in the District of Columbia on March 25, 2004.
In re Douglas F. Gansler. Bar No. 425465. December 15, 2005. In a reciprocal
matter from Maryland, the D.C. Court of Appeals imposed functionally
identical reciprocal discipline and publicly censured Gansler. The Court
of Appeals of Maryland publicly reprimanded Gansler for making improper
out-of-court statements to the press in his capacity as state’s
attorney for Montgomery County, Maryland, regarding three criminal prosecutions.
In re John L. Gizzarelli. Bar No. 183194. December 8, 2005. In a reciprocal
matter from Massachusetts, the D.C. Court of Appeals imposed functionally
identical reciprocal discipline and suspended Gizzarelli for five years
with fitness. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts indefinitely
suspended Gizzarelli. Gizzarelli, while retained to enforce an agreement
for the purchase of real estate, failed to take enough action in his
client’s matter, resulting in the dismissal of the case; to inform
his client of the case standing or the fact that he had ceased to practice
law; to deposit his client’s retainer in a segregated trust account;
to refund the unearned portion of the client’s retainer; and to
cooperate with the Massachusetts bar authorities.
In re Richard L. Gruber. Bar No. 314765. December 22, 2005. In a consolidated
reciprocal matter from New Jersey, the D.C. Court of Appeals imposed
identical reciprocal discipline and disbarred Gruber. In one matter,
the Supreme Court of New Jersey disbarred Gruber for multiple violations
of the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct, including dishonesty
and misappropriation of a client’s funds for his personal use.
In a second matter, the New Jersey court reprimanded Gruber for misconduct,
including gross neglect, lack of diligence, failure to communicate,
and failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities.
In re James R. Marlen. Bar No. 458330. December 30, 2005. In a reciprocal
matter from Texas, the D.C. Court of Appeals suspended Marlen for two
years, stayed in favor of two years’ probation subject to the
conditions set forth in the Texas Grievance Committee judgment. The
Texas disciplinary authority found that Marlen, who had been retained
to prosecute a securities fraud claim, violated Texas Rules of Disciplinary
Conduct pertaining to competent and diligent representation, communication
with client, safekeeping property, and failure to respond.
In re Agostinho D. Reis. Bar No. 304436. December 15, 2005. In a reciprocal
matter from New York, the D.C. Court of Appeals imposed identical reciprocal
discipline and disbarred Reis. The Appellate Division, Supreme Court
of New York, First Judicial Department, disbarred Reis for his failure
to respond to the disciplinary committee or the court or to seek reinstatement
within six months from the date of the order of suspension. The New
York disciplinary authorities charged Reis with misconduct over a three-year
period involving his representation of clients despite certifying that
he was retired from the practice of law, misappropriation of client
funds, acceptance of fees for work he did not perform, and abandonment
of clients.
Contempt Proceedings
In re Matthew J. Marshall Jr. Bar No. 381184. January 12, 2006. The
Honorable Harold L. Cushenberry Jr. of the Superior Court of the District
of Columbia sentenced Marshall to 180 days’ incarceration for
criminal contempt of court. Judge Cushenberry found that Marshall had
practiced law in violation of the disbarment order issued by the D.C.
Court of Appeals on November 22, 2000.
Informal Admonitions Issued by the Office of Bar Counsel
In re Michael R. Biel. Bar No. 35303. December 22, 2005. Bar Counsel
issued Biel an informal admonition for practicing law while administratively
suspended for nonpayment of bar dues, while serving as guardian and
conservator in an intervention proceeding matter. Rules 5.5(a) and 8.4(d).
In re Michael L. Glaser. Bar No. 16899. December 29, 2005. Bar Counsel
issued Glaser an informal admonition for filing a nonresidential attorney
pro hac vice application, with the Arizona Corporation Commission, that
contained representations he knew, or should have known, were false
and failing to correct those representations. Rules 3.3(a) and 8.4(c).
In re William J. Howard. Bar No. 45559. December 27, 2005. Bar Counsel
issued Howard an informal admonition for failing to keep his client
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and to comply with
reasonable requests for information, while representing his client in
a collection matter. Rule 1.4(a).
In re Elise A. Joyner. Bar No. 416485. December 28, 2005. Bar Counsel
issued Joyner an informal admonition for failing to safeguard entrusted
funds she received on behalf of a client in which two medical providers
had a third-party interest. Joyner’s client disputed the medical
provider’s entitlement to the funds and Joyner delivered the disputed
funds to the client. The ethical rules require that the lawyer decline
to release disputed funds to either the client or the third party until
the dispute is resolved. Rule 1.15(c).
In re John S. Lopatto III. Bar No. 965426. September 23, 2005. Bar
Counsel issued Lopatto an informal admonition for engaging in technical
commingling. Lopatto failed to keep separate his personal monies from
entrusted funds he received in connection with his representation of
clients, in that he failed to withdraw earned fees promptly from his
trust account. Rule 1.15(a).
In re Jacqueline J. Moore. Bar No. 228908. December 29, 2005. Bar Counsel
issued Moore an informal admonition. While serving as the court-appointed
fiduciary for an adult ward of the Probate Division of the Superior
Court, Moore failed to file, for at least five years, the required inventory
within the required time after her appointment in 1995 and the required
annual accounts with the probate court. In addition, Moore failed to
file the necessary final account as required following her resignation
as conservator appointed by the Superior Court. Rules 1.3(a), 1.3(c),
1.16(d), and 8.4(d).
In re Keith J. Smith. Bar No. 415529. December 28, 2005. Bar Counsel
issued Smith an informal admonition for failing to provide a writing
setting forth the rate or basis of his fee, while representing his client
in a probate matter. Rule 1.5(b).
The Office of Bar Counsel compiled the foregoing summaries of disciplinary
actions. Reports
and recommendations issued by the Board on Professional Responsibility,
as well as informal
admonitions issued by the Office of Bar Counsel, are posted on the
D.C. Bar Web site at www.dcbar.org.
Court opinions are printed in the Atlantic Reporter and, for
decisions issued since mid-1998, are also available online. To obtain
a copy of a recent slip opinion, visit www.dccourts.gov/
dccourts/appeals/opinions_mojs.jsp. Please note that in some cases
Bar members may have the same name. To confirm the identity of individuals
who have been subject to discipline, contact the D.C. Bar Member Service
Center at 202-626-3475 or membership@dcbar.org.
2005: The Year That Was
