Clients come to attorneys or agencies because they need legal assistance.
Their lawyer should be their champion in the legal battle or issue confronting
them. Legal problems and issues are naturally coupled with anxiety.
These clients deserve service, not anxiety, from their counsel.
We have all represented the client who makes us feel anxious and causes
us to perspire whenever we have to call the client back. The signs are
there. Avoidance has set in. This is also the beginning of a problem
if it is not addressed immediately.
I have had the opportunity to watch attorney conduct for 25 years.
On the basis of that experience, I can make the following observations:
The file an attorney is avoiding is usually directly behind the attorney’s
chair or in the 180 degrees behind the work surface. (If the attorney
has an alcohol or drug problem, the file could be anywhere.) The attorney
does not want to let the file go because he or she is going to work
on it—eventually.
A file is not like a fine wine; it will not improve with age.
The client knows the phone number of the Office of Bar Counsel.
Bar Counsel will not be interested in all the other good work an attorney
is doing, just in the work done on a client’s complaint matter.
As an attorney, you are probably thinking, “But, Gene, how do
I address this file?” I have the following suggestions:
1. Read it. Put the file in the middle of your desk. Go home for the
evening and enjoy your time with family and friends. First thing in
the morning, read every word in the file. You will discover either that
you know what to do or that you don’t have a clue. If you don’t
have a clue about what to do, you are the wrong attorney to be handling
the matter. Learn what to do or, if permissible, withdraw from the representation.
(Refund the fee!) It is better to have an initially unhappy client who
has a chance to get an attorney who can handle the representation than
to wind up with your name in the Atlantic Reporter (In re Gene Shipp)
for all of your family and friends to read.
2. Lunch it. If you are a solo practitioner, as I was for many years,
you need to go to lunch with an attorney who might hold the answer and
discuss hypothetical fact patterns or legal issues. You would be surprised
to learn how helpful a few minutes of talking can be.
3. Swap it. Swapping files is a very useful technique in our office,
since telling the complainant to take his or her case to some other
disciplinary agency is not a viable option. I will take a file I cannot
figure out to another attorney and say, “I have a dog for you.
Do you have a dog for me?” We read each other’s files and
later meet to talk through the issues.
4. Have the administrative staff monitor your conduct. I know this
sounds outlandish, but asking someone on staff to look out for you works.
Encourage your staff to take the initiative and put a file in the center
of your desk and say, “Don’t you mean to read this
file?” This is a very good employee. The staff know what you are
avoiding and can help. When they ask you about the file, bite your tongue
before you start that I-am-the-lawyer speech. It will only make you
feel bad, and hurts the people who are really trying to help you in
your practice.
We are all human and have our own troubles at times. We all need support,
even emotional support. Do not overextend. Do not avoid. It hurts your
client, the Bar’s reputation, and you. Avoidance also affects
your own mental health.
So turn around and grab that file you have been avoiding. And what
should you put in its place? Gather up all the bad feelings that come
with avoidance that you have been collecting over the past few months
and toss them back there. I promise that you will never miss them.*
* If you feel the need to review disciplinary cases about avoidance
and neglect, here are a few: In re Bernstein, 707 A.2d 371 (D.C.
1998) (30-day suspension for neglect in a personal injury matter); In
re Lewis, 689 A.2d 561 (D.C. 1997) (30-day suspension for neglect
in a criminal matter); In re Lyles, 680 A.2d 408 (D.C. 1996)
(six-month suspension with fitness for neglect in a bankruptcy matter);
In re Delate, 598 A.2d 154 (D.C. 1991) (two-year suspension with
fitness for neglect in a conservatorship matter); In re Foster,
581 A.2d 389 (D.C. 1990) (30-day suspension for neglect in a family
law matter).
Disciplinary Actions Taken by the Board on Professional Responsibility
Original Matters
In re John E. Anderson. Bar No. 420236. July 22, 2006. The Board on
Professional Responsibility issued Anderson a board reprimand for his
inappropriate handling of settlement funds and failure to communicate
with his client, and refers him to the D.C. Bar’s Practice Management
Advisory Service for a full evaluation of his maintenance of financial
records and his prompt enrollment in the mandatory legal ethics course
for new attorneys. Failure to comply within a reasonable period may
be grounds for future disciplinary action. Anderson failed to notify
and pay a third-party medical provider promptly from the proceeds of
a settlement in 1997, and failed to deposit checks representing the
settlement funds for this client into a properly labeled trust or escrow
account. Three members of the board concurred and dissented in part,
each writing separately. One board member concurred with the majority
order and opinion with respect to its determination that Anderson’s
conduct violated the rules found by the majority, but dissented from
the legal conclusion that there was no dishonest conduct in violation
of Rule 8.4(c), and from the recommendation that a board reprimand rather
than a public censure by the court was warranted. A second board member
concurred with the rule violations found by the board majority, but
also dissented from the legal conclusion that there was no dishonesty
in violation of Rule 8.4(c), and recommended a public censure. A third
board member concurred with the board majority, except with respect
to its conclusion that there was no dishonest conduct in violation of
Rule 8.4(c). Rules 1.4(a), 1.4(b), 1.15(b), and 1.17(a).
In re Frederic M. Brandes. Bar No. 466789. July 25, 2006. The Board
on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals
disbar Brandes by consent.
In re Karen P. Cleaver-Bascombe. Bar No. 458922. July 21, 2006. In
this supplemental report and recommendation issued after remand by the
D.C. Court of Appeals, the board recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals
suspend Cleaver-Bascombe for two years, with fitness. Cleaver-Bascombe
submitted a false voucher to the court in support of her application
for payment under the Criminal Justice Act, D.C. Code § 11-2601
et seq. (2001), for her representation of an indigent criminal defendant.
Three members of the board dissented. Two of the three dissenting board
members stated they would not make a finding that Cleaver-Bascombe testified
falsely during the hearing in this matter, with willful intent to do
so, and recommended a six-month suspension. The third board member,
writing separately, dissented for the reasons set forth by Associate
Judge Glickman in his dissenting opinion to the court’s remand
order.
In re Samuel Cooper III. Bar No. 175745. July 31, 2006. The Board on
Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals
suspend Cooper for 30 days and require, as a separate and independent
condition to his reinstatement, that he comply in full with the order
of the D.C. Court of Appeals enforcing Bar Counsel’s subpoena
entered on October 15, 2003, and that he prove fitness. Cooper failed
to respond to Bar Counsel’s lawful demand for information, engaged
in conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice,
and failed to comply with a court order. Rules 8.1(b) and 8.4(d) and
D.C. Bar R. XI, § 2(b)(3).
In re Irwin Jay Fredman. Bar No. 392066. July 7, 2006. The Board on
Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals
disbar Fredman by consent.
In re Robert W. Mance III. Bar No. 285379. July 28, 2006. The Board
on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals
issue Mance a public censure for commingling his own funds with his
client’s and failing to take timely steps to protect the client’s
interests by promptly returning the retainer. One member of the board
concurred with the majority that a public censure was the most appropriate
sanction to impose on Mance, but dissented with regard to its interpretation
of Rule 1.15(d). Rules 1.15(a) and 1.16(d).
In re Bruce A. Pelkey. Bar No. 446164. July 31, 2006. The Board on
Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals
disbar Pelkey for misconduct that arose out of business transactions
between 1996 and 1999. Pelkey, who acted as legal counsel for business
entities he created and operated with an individual he was romantically
involved with, engaged in intentional misappropriation; failed to provide
a prompt accounting; violated various rules pertaining to his conduct
in court and arbitration proceedings; and committed a criminal act that
reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or
fitness as a lawyer in other respects. Rules 1.15(a), 1.15(b), 3.1,
3.2(a), 3.3(a), 4.4, 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
In re Alan S. Toppelberg. Bar No. 230185. July 21, 2006. The Board
on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals
suspend Toppelberg for 60 days, with 30 days suspended in favor of a
period of probation of one year during which time Toppelberg shall meet
with the D.C. Bar’s Practice Management Advisory Service (PMAS),
implement its practice management recommendations, and submit to the
board and Bar Counsel a compliance report, prepared and certified by
Toppelberg and signed by a PMAS representative, that shall, at a minimum,
detail the management reforms implemented and describe the purpose to
be served by each. Toppelberg failed to disburse the proceeds from a
settlement promptly to entitled third parties. For several years the
third parties were misled by Toppelberg’s staff regarding the
status of the settlement—a situation that was, in part, attributable
to Toppelberg’s failure to maintain adequate trust account records
and to render accounts final, which thereby led to the disposal of all
monies held by him. In addition, Toppelberg’s delay in responding
to Bar Counsel’s subpoenas and the order enforcing them revealed
systemic problems with his trust account records. One member of the
board concurred with the majority report and recommendation except with
respect to its findings that Toppelberg did not violate Rule 1.3(b)(2)
(intentional prejudice to a client). Rules 1.15(a), 1.15(b), 5.3, 8.1(b),
and 8.4(d) and D.C. Bar R. XI, § 2(b)(3).
In re Lenore D. Verra. Bar No. 455438. July 21, 2006. The Board on
Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals
disbar Verra for reckless misappropriation, that the disbarment be stayed,
and that she be suspended for 30 days for dishonest conduct, including
conduct relating to Bar Counsel’s investigation. The board recommends
that following the 30-day suspension Verra be placed on probation for
three years, with the following conditions: (1) Verra will be under
the care of a psychiatrist and will attend psychotherapy sessions with
a mental health professional weekly, or as directed by the psychiatrist
and/or mental health professional, and shall submit monthly reports
for the psychiatrist or mental health professional regarding compliance
with her treatment regimen to the board, with a copy to Bar Counsel;
(2) Verra shall notify the board and Bar Counsel upon any change in
employment at least 30 days before the effective date of such change;
and (3) Vera shall notify the board and Bar Counsel in writing if she
intends to handle entrusted funds, and no later than 30 days before
the expected receipt of such funds, so that the board may consider the
imposition of appropriate safeguards. If Verra violates any of the terms
and conditions of the probation or the Rules of Professional Conduct,
she shall be subject to revocation of probation with imposition of the
underlying period of disbarment. The board found that Verra had provided
sufficient evidence to warrant Kersey-style mitigation with regard
to the misappropriation and related violations, but not with respect
to the charges of dishonesty, including in connection with Bar Counsel’s
investigation, which accounts for the period of actual suspension. Verra’s
misconduct included misappropriation and commingling; conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; failure to notify and
deliver funds promptly to a third party (medical provider); failure
to segregate entrusted funds; failure to keep and preserve records of
entrusted funds; knowingly making a false statement in connection with
a disciplinary matter and/or failing to respond to a Bar Counsel inquiry;
knowingly inducing another to violate the rules or violating the rules
through another; and failure to provide a retainer agreement to a client.
Rules 1.5(b), 1.15(a), 1.15(b), 1.17(a), 8.1(a), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c).
In re N. F. Wiggins. Bar No. 194076. July 31, 2006. The Board on Professional
Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals suspend Wiggins
for 60 days, with 30 days stayed, and be placed on probation for one
year, with the condition that he take and certify his completion of
a continuing legal education course in legal ethics during the period
of probation. The failure of Wiggins to file the required certification
would subject him to the imposition of the underlying 30-day suspension.
Wiggins advised another lawyer that she could conceal from that lawyer’s
clients that their personal injury case had not been accepted for filing
prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations and that she could
pay the clients from her own funds and thus lead them to believe that
the case had settled and that payment was from the defendant insurer.
One member of the board wrote a separate concurring statement. Rules
1.1(a), 1.2(e), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c).
Reciprocal Matters
In re Mikre M. Ayele. Bar No. 411658. July 27, 2006. In a reciprocal
matter from Virginia, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends
that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose identical reciprocal discipline
and suspend Ayele for one year and one day, effective immediately, and
that the discipline be subject to the conditions imposed on Ayele’s
suspension by the Virginia rules of court. Ayele’s misconduct
in Virginia arose out of his representation of two clients in immigration
matters. In one matter Ayele failed to file a required document, resulting
in a deportation order issued against his client. In that case Ayele
filed a motion to reopen and representation was assumed by successor
counsel. In a separate immigration matter, Ayele failed to file a docketing
statement on time and, as a result, his client’s case was dismissed.
Ayele was granted a motion to reopen and leave to file the docketing
statement, but he later committed a briefing default, resulting in dismissal;
failed to inform his client of the dismissal; and did not return his
client’s telephone calls.
In re Paul C. Bland. Bar No. 232512. June 16, 2006. In a reciprocal
matter from Virginia, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends
that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose functionally identical reciprocal
discipline and disbar Bland. The reciprocal discipline is based on three
orders of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, the last of which
revoked Bland’s license to practice law in Virginia. The misconduct
found in the three Virginia disciplinary proceedings on which this matter
is based shows a pattern of client neglect and lack of competent representation
on the part of Bland in eight separate client matters.
In re Michael W. Coopet. Bar No. 392884. June 8, 2006. In a reciprocal
matter from California, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends
that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose identical reciprocal discipline
in the form of a one-year suspension, stayed in favor of probation for
two years and an actual suspension of a minimum of 60 days, subject
to compliance with the order of restitution and the continuing legal
education requirements imposed by the California court. The board recommends
that Coopet’s suspension be effective immediately. The Supreme
Court of California suspended Coopet on the basis of stipulated facts
and conclusions of law agreed to by Coopet and the California State
Bar. While retained to represent a client in an interpleader matter
before the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, Coopet failed to provide competent representation;
failed to return unearned fees; failed to render an accounting; failed
to communicate with a client; violated other professional and business
codes; and falsely held himself out as entitled to practice law while
on inactive status.
In re Steven J. Dell. Bar No. 480800. July 31, 2006. In a reciprocal
matter from Florida, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends
that the D.C. Court of Appeals dismiss this matter. The Supreme Court
of Florida admonished Dell for placing an advertisement in the Yellow
Pages that did not comply with the rules regulating the Florida Bar.
In re John O. Iweanoge. Bar No. 439913. July 20, 2006. In a reciprocal
matter from Virginia, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends
that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose functionally identical reciprocal
discipline. The board recommends that upon compliance with the conditions
imposed by the Virginia court, Iweanoge receive a public censure from
the court or, failing such compliance, be suspended by the court for
60 days. In Virginia an order of a three-judge court for Arlington County
directed that Iweanoge receive a public reprimand upon compliance with
requirements to read, and take a course on, the Virginia Rules of Professional
Conduct or, failing to comply with those obligations, be suspended for
60 days from the practice of law in Virginia. The Virginia court found
by clear and convincing evidence that Iweanoge engaged in a pattern
of conduct in which he authorized a nonlawyer employee to sign pleadings
and endorse court orders.
In re Brian Shevlin. Bar No. 174102. July 27, 2006. In a reciprocal
matter from Virginia, the Board on Professional Responsibility imposed
identical reciprocal discipline and publicly admonished Shevlin. The
Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board issued Shevlin a public admonition
for misconduct that arose out of his representation of a client in a
medical malpractice case. The board concurred with the findings of the
Virginia State Bar that Shevlin violated Rules 1.3(a), 1.15(c)(4), and
3.4(d) of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, which are substantially
the same as their counterparts in the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct.
In re Edward A. Slavin Jr. Bar No. 413136. June 16, 2006. In a reciprocal
matter from Tennessee, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends
that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose identical reciprocal discipline
and suspend Slavin for two years and that his reinstatement be conditioned
upon his demonstrating, by clear and convincing evidence, that he has
the moral qualifications, competency, and learning in law required for
readmission, and that his resumption of the practice of law will not
be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the Bar or to the administration
of justice, or be subversive to the public interest. Slavin may file
a petition for reinstatement after the expiration of one year of his
suspension. Slavin’s misconduct arose from four proceedings in
which he represented “whistleblower” clients. Slavin became
the subject of numerous complaints lodged by judicial officers before
whom he appeared in the late 1990s and in the first years after the
turn of the century. The tenor of these complaints was that Slavin,
in his conduct and speech during formal hearings and in his written
filings in several courts and administrative tribunals, showed, as one
U.S. District Court judge found, “a callous disregard for the
proper and efficient functioning of the [tribunal] and a sense of disrespect
for the authority of a judicial system.” In addition, four of
his clients alleged that he had been “unprepared” and had
“filed an appeal for one client even though he had been instructed
not to, had given false information to a judge about a client’s
health . . . and had refused to follow the clients’ directions
regarding settlement.” The Tennessee Supreme Court upheld findings
that Slavin “had failed to follow orders of the court” and
“had made false statements” about a client’s illness
and “with regard to a client’s identity as an investigator”;
that his conduct had violated Tennessee disciplinary rules (which, among
other things, prohibited conduct prejudicial to the administration of
justice; conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation;
and intentionally prejudicing or damaging the client during the course
of the professional relationship); and that he had engaged in “undignified
or discourteous conduct which is degrading to a tribunal.”
In re Mark O. Sobo. Bar No. 463902. June 2, 2006. In a reciprocal matter
from Maryland, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that
the D.C. Court of Appeals impose identical reciprocal discipline and
suspend Sobo for 60 days, effective immediately. The Court of Appeals
of Maryland suspended Sobo for 60 days by consent and required him to
reimburse a former client $1,207. In the joint petition Sobo admitted
that he violated Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct relating to
competence, diligence, termination of representation, and fairness to
opposing party and counsel, while retained to represent a client in
a civil action for property damages, loss of income, and related expenses
arising out of an automobile accident.
In re Martin S. Tanner. Bar No. 418351. July 18, 2006. In a reciprocal
matter from Utah, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends
that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose reciprocal discipline and suspend
Tanner for five years with fitness. The Utah Supreme Court accepted
Tanner’s resignation with discipline pending, with leave to apply
for readmission to the Utah State Bar after five years. Tanner resigned
in Utah in the face of allegations of making material misrepresentations
to a court in connection with a divorce proceeding filed on behalf of
a client.
In re Jesus R. Romo Vejar. Bar No. 416922. July 31, 2006. In a reciprocal
matter from Arizona, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends
that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose substantially different reciprocal
discipline and suspend Vejar for six months. The Supreme Court of Arizona
publicly censured Vejar for neglect, negligent misappropriation, commingling,
and trust account violations stemming from his representation of a client
in a personal injury case and his handling of the settlement proceeds.
One member of the board dissented with regard to the issue of sanction.
In re Frank Denny Winston. Bar No. 97469. July 27, 2006. In three consolidated
reciprocal discipline cases from California, the Board on Professional
Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose functionally
identical reciprocal discipline and suspend Winston for five years with
fitness, effective immediately. The board decision is based on three
separate orders of the Supreme Court of California: the first two suspending
Winston for multiple instances of misconduct involving six different
California Bar complaints, and the last accepting his voluntary resignation
from the California Bar while additional disciplinary charges were pending
against him.
Disciplinary Actions Taken by the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals
Original Matters
In re J. Sinclair Long. Bar No. 433372. July 20, 2006. The D.C. Court
of Appeals suspended Long for 30 days, stayed in favor of probation
on the same terms and conditions as set forth in In re Boykins, 748
A.2d 413 (D.C. 2006) (one-year probation during which Long must comply
with specific conditions), subject to such modification as may be mutually
agreed between Long and Bar Counsel. Long violated Rules 1.1(a) and
1.1(b) by failing to evaluate the testator’s mental capacity or
to conform to the standard of care used by other lawyers preparing wills
for testators with questioned competency. In addition, Long violated
Rules 1.7(b)(2) and 1.7(c) by failing to seek the testator’s waiver
for a conflict of interest that resulted from Long’s drafting
the will, which left the testator’s entire estate to her caregiver,
another client whom Long had represented in a case brought by Adult
Protective Services challenging his care of the testator and his management
of her finances. Finally, Long failed to provide a writing setting forth
the basis or rate of his fee for preparing a will, in violation of Rule
1.5(b).
In re Reginald J. Rogers. Bar No. 440390. June 22, 2006. The D.C. Court
of Appeals disbarred Rogers and ordered that within 30 days he surrender
any papers and property in his possession, custody, or control, to which
his client in the underlying matter was entitled, and that his reinstatement
be contingent on his having made full restitution to the client for
all monies and assets that he misappropriated from her, with interest
at the rate of 6 percent per annum on each diversion to his own use
of such monies and assets, such interest accruing from the date of each
diversion to the date of each corresponding repayment or return. Rogers,
while retained by an elderly and infirm widow, engaged in intentional
misappropriation of more than $260,000; committed theft; did not keep
or maintain her complete financial records; engaged in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation; intentionally prejudiced
and damaged his client; failed to act with reasonable promptness; failed
to communicate the rate or basis of his fee in writing; and failed to
take timely steps to protect his client’s interests upon termination
of the representation. Rules 1.3(b)(2), 1.3(c), 1.4(a), 1.5(b), 1.15(a),
1.16(d), 8.4(b), and 8.4(c).
In re Bernard T. Thabault. Bar No. 376137. June 1, 2006. The D.C. Court
of Appeals disbarred Thabault by consent.
Reciprocal Matters
In re Burman A. Berger. Bar No. 427495. July 6, 2006. In a reciprocal
matter from Maryland, the D.C. Court of Appeals disbarred Berger, effective
immediately. The Court of Appeals of Maryland disbarred Berger by consent
for repeatedly neglecting his clients’ cases.
In re Patrick J. Blackburn. Bar No. 420702. July 6, 2006. In a reciprocal
matter from Alaska, the D.C. Court of Appeals imposed identical reciprocal
discipline and disbarred Blackburn. In Alaska, Blackburn was charged
in a petition with, inter alia, multiple acts of neglect, dishonesty,
and improper handling of client funds. He was disbarred by the Alaska
Supreme Court.
In re Changhwun Cho. Bar No. 441701. June 22, 2006. In a reciprocal
matter from Maryland, the D.C. Court of Appeals imposed identical reciprocal
discipline and disbarred Cho. The Court of Appeals of Maryland disbarred
Cho for abandoning his legal practice, intentionally misappropriating
funds on three occasions, and committing multiple acts of neglect and
failure to communicate with clients.
In re John R. Fuchs. Bar No. 411506. July 27, 2006. In a reciprocal
matter from California, the D.C. Court of Appeals imposed identical
reciprocal discipline and suspended Fuchs for one year, stayed in favor
of two years’ unsupervised probation, and required him to submit
proof that he has complied with all of the conditions of probation imposed
by the State Bar of California. Fuchs was suspended by the California
Supreme Court for ethical misconduct analogous to a violation of Rule
3.1 of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct: “A lawyer shall
not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein,
unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes
a good-faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of
existing law.”
In re Paul B. Klein. Bar No. 391816. July 20, 2006. In a reciprocal
matter, the D.C. Court of Appeals publicly censured Klein, ruling that
a public censure is the functional equivalent to a reprimand issued
by the Court of Appeals of Maryland. In the Maryland matter Klein stipulated
to misconduct relating to his failure to communicate with his client
and adequately inform the client that referring the client’s personal
injury case to another attorney would terminate Klein’s involvement
in the case.
In re Charles E. Meaden. Bar No. 408267. July 13, 2006. In a reciprocal
matter from New Jersey, the D.C. Court of Appeals imposed identical
reciprocal discipline and suspended Meaden for three years, commencing
from January 22, 2003, with a requirement that he prove fitness and
that he has complied with the other conditions imposed by New Jersey,
including specifically that he has completed a skills and methods course
approved by the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics within one year
of his reinstatement. The Supreme Court of New Jersey suspended Meaden
for committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on a lawyer’s
honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer and engaging in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Specifically,
Meaden’s misconduct included stealing an individual’s credit
card identity to purchase golf equipment, failing to report to the director
of attorney ethics in writing his indictment for criminal attempt, and
receiving stolen property, and in a separate instance failing to disclose
his psychiatric history on a firearms application.
In re Robert L. Roth. Bar No. 357160. July 27, 2006. In a reciprocal
matter from Florida, the D.C. Court of Appeals imposed identical reciprocal
discipline and disbarred Roth, nunc pro tunc to May 13, 2004. On May
15, 1997, Roth received a public reprimand from the Supreme Court of
Florida for violating the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct, including
engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. On
July 11, 2002, the Supreme Court of Florida disbarred Roth for further
violations, including intentional misappropriation of client funds and
engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
In re Mark O. Sobo. Bar No. 463902. July 27, 2006. In a reciprocal
matter from Maryland, the D.C. Court of Appeals imposed functionally
identical reciprocal discipline and suspended Sobo for 60 days. The
Court of Appeals of Maryland suspended Sobo for disciplinary violations
based on a joint petition for 60-day suspension by consent in which
Sobo acknowledged violating Maryland rules pertaining to failure to
provide competent representation; failure to act with reasonable diligence
and promptness in representing a client; failure to protect a client’s
interests following termination of representation; and failure to make
reasonable, diligent efforts to comply with a legally proper discovery
request by an opposing party. The Maryland court also directed Sobo
to pay a former client the amount of $1,207 and pay administrative fees
of $75.
In re N. Jerome Willingham. Bar No. 379780. June 8, 2006. In a reciprocal
matter from North Carolina, the D.C. Court of Appeals imposed identical
reciprocal discipline and disbarred Willingham, effective immediately.
Willingham was disbarred by the Disciplinary Hearing Commission of the
North Carolina State Bar following a series of charged ethical violations
in that state, including engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit, or misrepresentation by misappropriating the funds of three
clients; engaging in criminal conduct that reflects adversely on the
lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other
respects by misappropriating the funds of three clients; paying one
client with other clients’ funds despite a conflict of interest;
failing to disburse funds as directed by three clients; failing to maintain
a sufficient balance in his trust accounts; willfully and intentionally
failing to comply with a demand for information by the disciplinary
authority in North Carolina; and engaging in conduct amounting to contempt
of the Grievance Committee of the North Carolina State Bar.
Informal Admonitions Issued by the Office of Bar Counsel
In re Steven D. DiLibero. Bar No. 460576. May 24, 2006. Bar Counsel
issued DiLibero an informal admonition for failing to appear at an immigration
court hearing, improperly advising his client not to appear for a hearing,
filing an untimely motion, and failing to act with reasonable promptness,
while retained to represent a client in an immigration matter. Rules
1.1(a), 1.1(b), 1.3(a), 1.3(c), and 1.4(b).
In re Maher Hanania. Bar No. 464766. June 16, 2006. Bar Counsel issued
Hanania an informal admonition for failing to provide his client a writing
setting forth the basis or rate of his legal fee. Rule 1.5(b).
In re Maher Hanania. Bar No. 464766. June 19, 2006. Bar Counsel issued
Hanania an informal admonition for failing to file the appellant’s
brief in a criminal matter for which he had been appointed appellate
counsel, despite having been granted multiple extensions, resulting
in conviction for contempt. Rules 1.1(a), 1.1(b), 1.3(a), and 8.4(d).
In re Vandy L. Jamison Jr. Bar No. 437771. June 30, 2006. Bar Counsel
issued Jamison an informal admonition for failing to note his client’s
trial date, to check the court jacket to make sure his praecipe was
entered, to communicate with appointed defense counsel and the prosecutor,
and to review discovery material in a timely fashion, while retained
to represent a client in a criminal matter. Rules 1.1(a), 1.1(b), 1.3(a),
and 1.3(c).
In re Gregory L. Lattimer. Bar No. 371926. May 25, 2006. Bar Counsel
issued Lattimer an informal admonition for failing to safe-keep his
client’s property; to deliver client funds promptly; to provide
competent representation and serve a client with the skill and care
commensurate with that generally afforded to clients by other lawyers
in similar matters; and to provide the proper writing for a division
of legal fees between two lawyers who are not in the same firm, while
retained to represent the parent of two minor children in a civil action
against the District of Columbia. Rules 1.1(a), 1.1(b), 1.5(e)(2), 1.15(a),
and 1.15(b).
In re Allen J. Lowe. Bar No. 945584. May 5, 2006. Bar Counsel issued
Lowe an informal admonition for failing to safeguard and turn over the
client’s file promptly when the representation was terminated,
while retained to represent a client in a workers’ compensation
matter. Rules 1.15(a) and 1.16(d).
In re Marshall E. Rosenberg. Bar No. 440649. June 19, 2006. Bar Counsel
issued Rosenberg an informal admonition. Rosenberg, while retained in
a patent matter, failed to keep his client reasonably informed about
the status of the matter. Rosenberg also failed to comply in a timely
manner with a board order compelling his response to the underlying
ethical complaint. Rules 1.4(a) and 8.4(d).
In re Malik Z. Shabazz. Bar No. 458434. May 25, 2006. Bar Counsel issued
Shabazz an informal admonition for failing to safe-keep his client’s
property; knowingly assisting another to violate the Rules of Professional
Conduct; failing to provide competent representation and serve a client
with the skill and care commensurate with that generally afforded to
clients by other lawyers in similar matters; and failing to provide
the proper writing for a division of legal fees between two lawyers
who are not in the same firm, while retained by the parent to represent
the interests of two minor children in a civil action against the District
of Columbia. Rules 1.1(a), 1.1(b) 1.5(e)(2), 1.15(a), and 8.4(a).
In re Gilda Sherrod-Ali. Bar No. 415526. June 19, 2006. Bar Counsel
issued Sherrod-Ali an informal admonition for failing to provide competent
representation; failing to serve a client with the skill and care commensurate
with that generally afforded to clients by other lawyers in similar
matters; failing to represent a client zealously and diligently within
the bounds of the law; and engaging in conduct that seriously interferes
with the administration of justice, when she willfully disobeyed three
court orders directing her to perfect an appeal. Rules 1.1(a), 1.1(b),
1.3(a), and 8.4(d).
In re James W. Taglieri. Bar No. 229880. May 25, 2006. Bar Counsel
issued Taglieri an informal admonition for failing to provide adequate
notice of his withdrawal as counsel or to protect the client’s
interests, while retained to represent a client in a medical malpractice
matter. Rule 1.16(d).
In re Bruce A. Tassan. Bar No. 387518. June 30, 2006. Bar Counsel issued
Tassan an informal admonition for engaging in improper ex parte communications
with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) on several occasions
and failing to comply with an order of the TTAB, while retained to represent
a client in connection with an application to register a trademark.
Rules 3.5(b) and 8.4(d).
Avoiding Avoidance
