Disciplinary Actions Taken by the Board on Professional Responsibility
Original Matters
In re James R. Boykins. Bar No. 426147. July 31, 2008. The Board on
Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals
suspend Boykins for two years with his reinstatement conditioned upon
his compliance of several terms, including accepting the assistance
and advice of a practice monitor selected by the board to assist and
advise him regarding his record keeping in general and, specifically,
with regard to his escrow and trust accounts and his handling of client
and other entrusted funds and related matters. Then, upon his reinstatement,
Boykins would be placed on probation for a period of one year and, during
that period, he would be subjected to the oversight of the practice
monitor selected by the board and required to cooperate with the practice
monitor. Failure to cooperate would constitute a violation of his probation
that would subject Boykins to revocation of probation and the imposition
of another period of suspension of up to six months, with a requirement
that he furnish proof of rehabilitation before he would be reinstated
to practice. Boykins would not be required to notify clients of his
probationary status. The disciplinary charges in this matter stem from
several financial irregularities. Specifically, Boykins settled two
unrelated personal injury matters for separate clients, with the settlement
funds being deposited in a single trust account. Thereafter, Boykins
withdrew more fees from the account than he was entitled to be paid.
As a result, when one client presented the check for her share of the
settlement funds, the bank refused to honor it because the balance in
the trust account was insufficient. Boykins engaged in negligent misappropriation
and failed to establish and maintain complete records, failed to notify
and pay third parties with an interest in the settlement funds, knowingly
made false statements of material fact to Bar Counsel during the investigation,
engaged in dishonest conduct, and seriously interfered with the administration
of justice. Rules 1.15(a), 1.15(b), 8.1(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
In re Herbert A. Callihan. Bar No. 1792. July 9, 2008. The Board on
Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals
disbar Callihan by consent.
In re Garrett L. Lee. Bar No. 453408. June 26, 2008. The Board on Professional
Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals disbar Lee
by consent, effective August 29, 2008.
In re Howard Shmuckler. Bar No. 395462. July 31, 2008. The Board on
Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals
disbar Shmuckler. Shmuckler pleaded guilty to two counts of bankruptcy
fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 152(1) and (2) in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California,
crimes involving moral turpitude per se for which disbarment is mandatory
in accordance with D.C. Code § 11-2503(a).
In re Toan Q. Thai. Bar No. 439343. July 31, 2008. The Board on Professional
Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals suspend Thai
for 60 days, with execution of the last 30 days of the suspension stayed
in favor of unsupervised probation for one year. As conditions of his
probation, Thai should be required to do the following: (1) file with
the Board on Professional Responsibility and Bar Counsel a certification
that he has attended six hours of continuing legal education courses
in legal ethics and law office management as approved by Bar Counsel,
and (2) pay a former client full restitution of the fees paid Thai in
the amount of $4,500, with interest computed at the usual legal rate.
While retained to represent a foreign national in an immigration matter
before the immigration court, Thai failed to provide competent representation,
serve his client with skill and care, represent his client zealously
and diligently within the bounds of the law, act with reasonable promptness
in representing his client, keep his client reasonably informed about
the status of a matter, and promptly comply with reasonable requests
for information. Rules 1.1(a), 1.1(b), 1.3(a), 1.3(c), and 1.4(a).
Reciprocal Matters
In re Vincent M. Amberly. Bar No. 365590. June 13, 2008. In a reciprocal
matter from Virginia, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends
that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose substantially different reciprocal
discipline and suspend Amberly for 30 days because the discipline imposed
in Virginia was both outside the range of, and substantially different
from, the discipline that would be imposed in an original disciplinary
proceeding in the District of Columbia. The disciplinary board of the
Virginia State Bar issued Amberly an admonition with terms. The Virginia
board found Amberly had violated Virginia rules pertaining to making
a false statement to a tribunal, making a false statement while representing
a client, making a false statement in a disciplinary matter, and engaging
in acts of dishonesty reflecting adversely on a lawyer’s fitness
to practice law.
In re Timothy R. Balducci. Bar No. 490242. June 13, 2008. The Board
on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals
disbar Balducci. Balducci pleaded guilty in December 2007 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi to the
felony of conspiracy to commit bribery of a state court judge, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 371. The D.C. Court of Appeals previously has ruled
that the crime of bribery inherently involves moral turpitude, and because
conspiracy to commit such a crime also is deemed to involve moral turpitude,
the board on recommends that Balducci be disbarred, in accordance with
D.C. Code § 11-2503(a).
In re Michael S. Blumenthal. Bar No. 436975. July 30, 2008. In a reciprocal
matter from Maryland, the Board on Professional Responsibility imposed
identical reciprocal discipline and imposed a board reprimand against
Blumenthal. The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland issued a letter
of reprimand to Blumenthal. While retained to represent a client in
a criminal matter, Blumenthal failed to “establish a definitive
agreement” with the client regarding the fee required to represent
her at her scheduled trial, and failed to deposit the client’s
partial installment payments into an attorney trust account for safekeeping
until the funds were earned. Blumenthal did not have the client’s
consent, confirmed in writing, to deposit the unearned advance fees
into a nontrust account.
In re Anthony G. Filomeno. Bar No. 427323. June 18, 2008. In a reciprocal
matter from New Jersey, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends
that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose identical reciprocal discipline
and publicly censure Filomeno. The Supreme Court of New Jersey censured
Filomeno for possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia, in violation
of the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct concerning criminal
conduct that reflects adversely on an attorney’s honesty, trustworthiness,
or fitness as a lawyer.
In re Desmond P. Fitzgerald. Bar No. 461613. July 24, 2008. In a reciprocal
matter from Massachusetts, the Board on Professional Responsibility
recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose substantially different
reciprocal discipline and suspend FitzGerald for 30 days. The Massachusetts
board entered an order of public reprimand against FitzGerald based
on its acceptance of a written stipulation and joint recommendation
wherein FitzGerald stipulated to violating the Massachusetts Rules of
Professional Conduct pertaining to competence, diligence, failure to
reasonably explain matter to client, conflict of interest, and failure
to withdraw as counsel while representing a client in an asylum case.
In re John R. Fuchs. Bar No. 411506. July 29, 2008. In a reciprocal
matter from California, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends
that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose identical reciprocal discipline
and suspend Fuchs for two years, with all but the first six months stayed,
and place Fuchs on probation for three years subject to the conditions
imposed by the California Court, except for payment of costs of the
D.C. disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court of California suspended
Fuchs for violating California rules pertaining to failure to promptly
notify his client of the receipt of funds and conflict of interest.
Fuchs, who originally was retained to represent a married couple in
a civil action, continued to represent both parties after their subsequent
divorce despite their disagreement over a number of issues, including
the manner of proceeding in the collection action of the civil action
he successfully won on their behalf. Thereafter, Fuchs failed to promptly
notify the wife of a $126,000 judgment and refused to disburse the wife’s
share based on her husband’s unsubstantiated claim that he was
entitled to the entire judgment.
In re Christopher D. Matchett. Bar No. 423355. July 31, 2008. In a
reciprocal matter from Louisiana, the Board on Professional Responsibility
recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals hold this reciprocal discipline
proceeding in abeyance pending conclusion of the proceeding in Louisiana,
and that the interim suspension remain in effect until the issue of
reciprocal discipline can be determined under D.C. Bar Rule XI, §
11. To date, the Supreme Court of Louisiana approved a joint petition
for interim suspension by consent.
Disciplinary Actions Taken by the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals
Original Matters
In re Celicia G. Hoover-Hankerson. Bar No. 438086. July 17, 2008. The
D.C. Court of Appeals disbarred Hoover-Hankerson. Hoover-Hankerson was
convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
on one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, two counts
of fraud in the first degree, two counts of theft concerning programs
receiving federal funds, and aiding and abetting each of the preceding
counts, crimes involving moral turpitude per se, for which disbarment
is mandatory under D.C. Code § 11-2503(a) (2001).
In re Garrett L. Lee. Bar No. 453408. July 24, 2008. The D.C. Court
of Appeals disbarred Lee by consent, effective August 29, 2008.
In re Peter Paul Mitrano. Bar No. 410441. July 17, 2008. The D.C.
Court of Appeals disbarred Mitrano and conditioned his reinstatement
on proof that he has made restitution to Dano Industries of the proceeds
of a January 8, 1998, check, with interest from that date, less any
amounts he can prove he was entitled to as of the date he received the
check. Mitrano engaged in theft and misappropriation of a substantial
check drawn to his client as the result of protracted litigation he
handled against the District of Columbia over a large business contract.
Mitrano violated seven disciplinary rules, including theft and misappropriation
of client funds; committed a criminal act that reflects adversely on
the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer;
engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation;
commingling; failed to notify the client or other interested persons
of the receipt of funds to which he or she is entitled and to render
a prompt accounting of any monies he had received; failed to keep property
in which interests are claimed by the lawyer and another person separate
until an accounting and severance of interests in the property; failed
to segregate required funds in a specially designated account at a financial
institution; and failed to communicate. Rules 1.4(a), 1.15(a), 1.15(b),
1.15(c), 1.17(a), 8.4(b), and 8.4(c).
In re John W. Stewart Jr. Bar No. 464842. July 24, 2008. The D.C.
Court of Appeals disbarred Stewart and ordered, as a condition of reinstatement,
he make restitution to his former clients in the amount of $36,930.
This matter was based on disciplinary complaints filed by 16 clients
who purchased real property at District of Columbia tax foreclosure
sales and retained Stewart to file the required civil complaints to
foreclose the right of redemption on those properties. In addition,
the Finance Office of the D.C. Superior Court referred a matter to the
Office of Bar Counsel pertaining to Stewart providing checks for filing
fees that were returned for insufficient funds that were never made
good. The board upheld the Hearing Committee’s findings below
that Stewart failed to provide competent representation; failed to communicate
with his clients; and engaged in conduct involving criminal fraud and
theft, dishonesty, and misappropriation of advances paid to cover fees
for filings, publications, and title searches. Stewart’s clients
lost more than $47,500 in deposits paid for the purchase of tax sale
properties, and the fees and cost advances paid to Stewart for work
he never performed. Rules 1.1(a), 1.1(b), 1.2(a), 1.3(a), 1.3(b), 1.3(c),
1.4(a), 1.4(b), 1.5(b), 1.15(a), 1.15(d), 1.16(d), 8.1(b), 8.4(b), 8.4(c),
and 8.4(d) and D.C. Bar R. XI, § 2(b)(3).
In re Joyce A. Wilson. Bar No. 386711. July 31, 2008. The D.C. Court
of Appeals disbarred Wilson because she had intentionally misappropriated
assets from the estate for which she was a guardian and filed falsified
documents with the probate court to hide her misdeeds. In addition,
Wilson failed to respond to Bar Counsel’s inquiries and comply
with a board order compelling her to respond to the allegations in Bar
Counsel’s notice of investigation. Rules 1.15(a), 3.3(a)(1), 8.1(b),
8.4(c), and 8.4(d) and D.C. Bar R. XI, § 2(b)(3).
Reciprocal Matters
In re Franklin Feigenbaum. Bar No. 426153. June 26, 2008. In a reciprocal
matter, the D.C. Court of Appeals suspended Feigenbaum for five years
with fitness as reciprocal discipline based upon his “resignation
with charges pending” in California.
In re Darryl K. Fountain. Bar No. 386220. July 17, 2008. In a reciprocal
matter from Delaware, the D.C. Court of Appeals imposed identical reciprocal
discipline and disbarred Fountain. Fountain was suspended by the Supreme
Court of Delaware after admitting to serious and repeated violations
of that jurisdiction’s Rules of Professional Conduct. That same
court subsequently disbarred Fountain by default after he failed to
answer further disciplinary charges. In sum, and most significantly,
Fountain either admitted to having or was found to have repeatedly failed
his fiduciary and financial obligations, repeatedly misappropriated
client funds, falsified records, and failed to file tax returns for
several years.
In re Robert P. Hilson. Bar No. 366947. July 17, 2008. The D.C. Court
of Appeals imposed substantially different reciprocal discipline and
disbarred Hilson, to commence for purposes of reinstatement on June
25, 2007. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for
Suffolk County indefinitely suspended Hilson from the practice of law
for dishonestly converting funds he was required to hold in trust during
the representation of clients, breaching a fiduciary duty to his clients,
failing to deposit entrusted funds in an interest-bearing account, exposing
his clients to potential liability, and disclosing client confidences.
In re Stephen D. Landfield. Bar No. 388146. July 17, 2008. In a reciprocal
matter from New Jersey, the D.C. Court of Appeals imposed identical
reciprocal discipline and suspended Landfield for six months with fitness.
This reciprocal disciplinary matter stems from four separate suspensions
for various violations of the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct.
Landfield’s suspensions in New Jersey, which ranged from three
to six months, were to run concurrently and included the requirement
that he prove his fitness to practice law as a condition of reinstatement.
In re J. Coury Macdonald. Bar No. 426895. June 12, 2008. In a reciprocal
matter from Virginia, the D.C. Court of Appeals imposed functionally
identical reciprocal discipline and disbarred Macdonald. The disciplinary
board of the Virginia State Bar issued an order revoking Macdonald’s
license to practice law, finding that he violated Virginia Rules of
Professional Conduct pertaining to diligence regarding client matters,
communication with a client, safekeeping of property, termination of
representation, unauthorized practice of law, and misconduct. The misconduct
that prompted the Virginia board’s order included failure to keep
and render appropriate accounts to clients, failure to notify clients
of his October 2006 suspension, practicing law while suspended, and
converting for his own use at least $300,000 of a client’s funds
designated for trusts that Macdonald was to establish, as requested
by the client. Macdonald faced four pending felony charges alleging
that he obtained money by false pretenses.
In re Christopher H. Reed. Bar No. 451941. June 5, 2008. In a reciprocal
matter from Arizona, the D.C. Court of Appeals imposed materially identical
reciprocal discipline and suspended Reed for three years with reinstatement
conditioned upon a showing of fitness to resume the practice of law.
The Arizona discipline was based on 12 instances of misappropriation
on the part of Reed. Because the record of the Arizona proceedings did
not contain clear and convincing evidence that Reed intentionally or
recklessly misappropriated client funds, the court did not disbar Reed
in this jurisdiction. The other principal disciplinary offenses include
8 violations of rules governing lack of diligence, 9 cases of failure
to communicate with clients, 16 instances of misconduct prejudicial
to the administration of justice, and 15 knowing failures to respond
to a disciplinary authority’s lawful demands for information.
Moreover, Reed’s serious offenses were aggravated by his “bad
faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing
to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency” and
his “indifference to making restitution.”
In re William M. Sawyer. Bar No. 162388. July 17, 2008. In a reciprocal
matter from Kentucky, the D.C. Court of Appeals imposed identical reciprocal
discipline and suspended Sawyer for three years with fitness. The Supreme
Court of Kentucky suspended Sawyer for three years with fitness based
on his guilty plea to criminal charges of possession of cocaine, possession
of a prescription drug not in its original container, and possession
of drug paraphernalia. Those felony charges were ultimately dismissed
after Sawyer was granted, and successfully completed, pretrial diversion.
In the disciplinary proceedings, Sawyer’s consent suspension was
based on his admission he had committed a criminal act that reflects
adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer.
In re Fritz H. Schneider. Bar No. 391941. July 3, 2008. In a reciprocal
matter from Maryland, the D.C. Court of Appeals imposed identical reciprocal
discipline and disbarred Schneider. The Court of Appeals of Maryland
disbarred Schneider after he stipulated to violating Maryland Rules
of Professional Conduct pertaining to scope of representation; diligence;
communication; conflict of interest; declining or terminating representation;
criminal act reflecting adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness,
or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; dishonesty, fraud, deceit,
or misrepresentation; and conduct prejudicial to the administration
of justice. These violations stemmed from Schneider’s failure
to file a timely complaint on behalf of his client and his attempts
to conceal that neglect by misrepresenting that the case had settled
and paying the client out of his personal funds.
In re Andrew M. Steinberg. Bar No. 350983. July 17, 2008. In a reciprocal
matter from Maryland, the D.C. Court of Appeals imposed identical reciprocal
discipline and disbarred Steinberg. The Court of Appeals of Maryland
found that Steinberg committed serious and protracted acts of neglect
and was dishonest with clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals, in
violation of a number of provisions of the Maryland Rules of Professional
Conduct, during his representation of two clients in separate probate
and bankruptcy matters.
In re Monica M. Turnbo. Bar No. 434437. July 24, 2008. In a reciprocal
matter from Maryland, the D.C. Court of Appeals imposed identical reciprocal
discipline and disbarred Turnbo. The Court of Appeals of Maryland granted
a joint petition for disbarment by consent and disbarred Turnbo for
various violations of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, including
the commingling of funds and misuse of trust account funds.
In re Charles C. Wright. Bar No. 329888. June 5, 2008. In a reciprocal
matter from Pennsylvania, the D.C. Court of Appeals imposed identical
reciprocal discipline and disbarred Wright. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
disbarred Wright based on a 2003 criminal proceeding wherein Wright
pleaded guilty in Pennsylvania to two counts of third-degree felony
sexual abuse of children, one count of dissemination of obscenity to
minors, one count of criminal use of a communication facility, and one
misdemeanor count of possessing instruments of a crime.
Temporary Suspensions by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
In re Stephen B. Cohen. Bar No. 182303. June 12, 2008.
In re Robert E. Coughlin II. Bar No. 480261. June 12, 2008.
In re Otha M. Jackson. Bar No. 248393. July 11, 2008.
In re Michael J. Wing. Bar No. 477728. June 10, 2008.
The Office of Bar Counsel compiled the foregoing summaries of disciplinary
actions. Informal Admonitions issued by Bar Counsel and Reports and
Recommendations issued by the Board on Professional Responsibility are
posted on the D.C. Bar Web site at www.dcbar.org/discipline.
Most board recommendations as to discipline are not final until considered
by the court. Court opinions are printed in the Atlantic Reporter and
also are available online for decisions issued since August 1998. To
obtain a copy of a recent slip opinion, visit www.dcappeals.gov/dccourts/appeals/
opinions_mojs.jsp.
The Human Condition
