In re Bailey
Decision Date | 15 September 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 03-BG-171.,Bar Registration No. 384974,03-BG-171. |
Citation | 883 A.2d 106 |
Parties | In re Samuel BAILEY, Jr., Respondent. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals . |
Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Karl W. Carter, for respondent.
Elizabeth J. Branda, Executive Attorney, for the Board on Professional Responsibility.
Traci M. Tait, Assistant Bar Counsel, with whom Joyce E. Peters, Bar Counsel at the time the brief was filed, was on the brief, for the Office of Bar Counsel.
Before SCHWELB and REID, Associate Judges and FERREN, Senior Judge.
A majority of the Board on Professional Responsibility ("the Board") has recommended that Samuel Bailey, Jr. be suspended from the practice of law for nine months and be required to complete a course in ethics and a course in trust accounting as a condition of reinstatement, due to his violation of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Responsibility. The Board found that Mr. Bailey had commingled funds,1 failed to maintain complete trust account records,2 failed to notify a physician of a client's settlement,3 and entered into an impermissible business transaction with a client.4 The Board majority rejected the hearing committee's finding of misappropriation.5 Because the hearing committee automatically recommended disbarment6 I after having found that Mr. Bailey engaged in misappropriation, the Board conducted its own sanctions analysis and concluded that a nine-month suspension was appropriate. Bar Counsel and Mr. Bailey noted exceptions to the Board's report and recommendation.
Bar Counsel contends that the Board erred when it rejected the hearing committee's finding of misappropriation. Specifically, Bar Counsel asserts that the authorization gave Dr. Franklin Garmon an interest in the settlement funds thus obligating Mr. Bailey to "safeguard and promptly pay funds belonging to [Dr. Garmon]." Therefore, when Mr. Bailey Bar Counsel notes exception to the recommended nine-month suspension, insisting that disbarment is warranted. Mr. Bailey contends that the authorization did not give Dr. Garmon a property interest in the settlement funds,7 and therefore the Board did not err when it found no misappropriation. Mr. Bailey, however, disagrees with the Board's recommended sanction and argues that because he made an "honest mistake" he should only be given a six-month suspension.
The record before us, which includes the findings of the hearing committee, shows that Mr. Bailey8 represented Almaz Haile, an immigrant from Eritrea.9 Ms. Haile sustained an injury in 1989, at a Giant Food store, when she slipped and fell. She retained Mr. Bailey, then a member of Lee & Harvey, to represent her in a personal injury action.10
In the course of his representation, Mr. Bailey referred Ms. Haile to Dr. Garmon, who treated her injuries. On June 19, 1989, an "[a]uthorization" form provided by Dr. Garmon to Ms. Haile and Mr. Bailey was executed. The section of the "[a]uthorization" under which Ms. Haile's signature appears, provided in pertinent part:
The section signed by Mr. Bailey read as follows: "The undersigned, being attorney of record for the above patient/client does hereby agree to observe all the terms of the above and agrees to withhold such sums from any settlement(s), judgment(s) or verdicts due said patient/client as may be necessary to adequately protect said doctor."
On September 27, 1991, Mr. Bailey deposited a $25,000 settlement check from Giant Foods' insurance company into an account with City National Bank under the name "Samuel Bailey Jr Atty at Law Client Trust Account" ("Trust Account"). Prior to the deposit of that check, the account had a balance of $931.38.
A settlement disbursement sheet, dated September 26, 1991, was signed by Ms. Haile and Mr. Bailey. It stated, The disbursement sheet showed that Ms. Haile was owed $9,122.13.11 The disbursement sheet also revealed that the total cost of Ms. Haile's medical expenses was $5,425.86, which included $2,420.30 owed to Dr. Garmon. The final paragraph of the settlement disbursement sheet specified: "I, Almaz Haile, have read the above disbursement and agree with all payments."
In addition, a promissory note was executed by Mr. Bailey on September 26, 1991. It provided as follows:
Ms. Haile testified that Mr. Bailey did not inform Dr. Garmon or any of the other medical providers about this agreement.
Mr. Bailey testified that he prepared and executed the promissory note and reviewed the terms with Ms. Haile. Although English was not Ms. Haile's first language, Mr. Bailey testified that they "were able to communicate," and that he thought "she understood."12 Mr. Bailey did not advise Ms. Haile to consult legal counsel regarding the loan, nor did he provide Ms. Haile with the prevailing interest rate. An expert for Bar Counsel testified that if Mr. Bailey had received a loan from a bank, the interest rate would have been higher than what was provided in the promissory note. However, the expert "did not establish that Ms. Haile could have earned more by investing or lending her money elsewhere."
Mr. Bailey never notified Dr. Garmon of the settlement. Instead, Dr. Garmon learned of the settlement when he encountered Ms. Haile months later. Thereafter, Dr. Garmon made several phone calls to Mr. Bailey's office inquiring about his payment. After Mr. Bailey failed to respond, Dr. Garmon wrote him a letter on August 19, 1992, in which he demanded payment and threatened legal action if payment was not received. On September 2, 1992, Dr. Garmon filed a complaint with Bar Counsel. Mr. Bailey eventually paid Dr. Garmon $2,420.30 on October 23, 1992, more than one year after the case had been settled.13
During the period between September 1991 and November 1992, Mr. Bailey made several telephone transfers and cash withdrawals from his client Trust Account; however, he lacked the records to explain them. He also deposited several checks into the Trust Account reflecting payments for "legal fee[s]" or "attorney fees," $10,000 borrowed from his mother, fee advances, and entrusted client funds. By August 18, 1992, the Trust Account had a balance of 0.11 cents according to account analysis.
Bar Counsel filed the specification of charges against Mr. Bailey on November 2, 1998. The specification alleged that:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wcca v. Johnson
...what a reasonable person in the position of the parties would have thought the disputed language meant.'" (quoting In re Bailey, 883 A.2d 106, 118 (D.C.2005))).17 VI. Back Pay and Front Johnson asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to award him back pay for the p......
-
Pch Mut. Ins. Co. Inc. v. Cas. & Sur. Inc.
...6 (D.D.C.2010) (citing Dist. No. 1–Pac. Coast Dist. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co., 782 A.2d 269, 274 (D.C.2001)); see also In re Bailey, 883 A.2d 106, 118 (D.C.2005) (“none of the provisions at issue here are ambiguous, although the agreement is poorly drafted.”). “The relevant question is n......
-
The Armenian Assembly of Am. Inc. v. Cafesjian
...have thought the disputed language meant.” Tillery v. D.C. Contract Appeals Bd., 912 A.2d 1169, 1176 (D.C.2006) (quoting In re Bailey, 883 A.2d 106, 118 (D.C.2005)). “Ambiguity exists only if the court determines that the proper interpretation of the contract cannot be derived from the cont......
-
In re Greenspan
...inconsistent dispositions for comparable conduct or would otherwise be unwarranted." D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g)(1) (2005); In re Bailey, 883 A.2d 106, 115 (D.C.2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, "`in the final analysis, the responsibility to discipline lawyers is the court's.'" ......
-
Disputed Funds in the Possession of a Lawyer
...Opinion 2010-F-154, 2010 WL 3767993 n.l (Sept. 10, 2010) (collecting ethics opinions from other jurisdictions). See also In re Bailey, 883 A.2d 106, 116 (D.C. 2005) (citing with approval "just claim" analysis in D.C. Legal Ethics Opinion No. 293, "Disposition of Property of Clients and Othe......