In re Bernstein
Decision Date | 07 June 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 99-BG-1440.,99-BG-1440. |
Citation | 774 A.2d 309 |
Parties | In re Kenneth H. BERNSTEIN, Respondent. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. |
Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Kenneth H. Bernstein, pro se.
Ross T. Dicker, Assistant Bar Counsel, with whom Joyce E. Peters, Bar Counsel, was on the brief, for the Office of Bar Counsel.
Before STEADMAN and SCHWELB, Associate Judges, and KERN, Senior Judge.
The Board on Professional Responsibility (BPR or the Board) has recommended that Kenneth H. Bernstein, a member of our Bar since 1975, be suspended from practice for nine months for charging an unreasonable fee, for commingling, and for engaging in conduct involving dishonesty. The Board has further proposed that Bernstein's reinstatement be conditioned, inter alia, on his payment of restitution, with interest, to a former client, and on Bernstein's completion of a Continuing Legal Education course on professional responsibility. Bernstein has raised numerous objections to the Board's report and recommendation. With a single minor exception,1 we impose the discipline recommended by the Board.
This case arises out of a workers' compensation claim that Bernstein filed with the Industrial Commission of Virginia (the Commission) more than ten years ago. Bernstein's client in that matter, John D. Smith, claimed to have suffered injuries to his back while employed in Virginia. Bernstein was not a member of the Virginia Bar, but he associated himself, for purposes of the representation, with an attorney who was admitted to practice in that jurisdiction.
In May 1992, Bernstein negotiated a settlement on Smith's behalf with the employer's attorney. Under the terms of the settlement, the employer was to pay Mr. Smith a total of $30,000. After securing his client's approval, Bernstein prepared, and Smith executed, a "Legal Services and Settlement Allocation Agreement" which provided that $9,000 of the $30,000 would be paid to Bernstein.
Under Virginia law, Bernstein's fee was subject to the approval of the Commission. On June 8, 1992, Bernstein wrote a letter to the Commission requesting approval of a fee "in the amount of 25% of the settlement amount," or $7,500. Bernstein noted in his letter that his client had agreed to the proposed fee.
In July 1992, the Commission rejected Bernstein's request for a fee of $7,500, and instead awarded him a total of only $4,000 for representing Mr. Smith. Bernstein later complained that the Commission's award represented "a 60% pay cut from his original agreement" with his client.3 Bernstein again requested the Commission to award him a fee of at least $7,500, and he stated that he was absorbing "$1,000 of what otherwise would be expenses of the client." On September 17, 1992, the Commission approved the settlement of $30,000, increased Bernstein's initial award by 50%, and directed that $6,000 be deducted from the total award and paid to Bernstein for his representation of Mr. Smith.
Although the Commission's revised fee award represented a substantial increase over the amount originally awarded, Bernstein apparently regarded it as unlawful and confiscatory. In any event, Bernstein ignored the Commission's decision. After receiving a check pursuant to the settlement,4 Bernstein retained $9,000, rather than $6,000, for himself. Notwithstanding his fiduciary obligation vis-a-vis his client, Bernstein did not inform Mr. Smith that the Commission had approved only $6,000 as Bernstein's compensation.5 Smith had previously been provided with documents revealing that it was the Commission's responsibility to designate the amount of Bernstein's fee.6 Under these circumstances, in the absence of information to the contrary from Bernstein, Smith could reasonably assume that any fee deducted by Bernstein from the proceeds of the settlement had been approved by the Commission.7
On October 5, 1992, upon receiving the settlement check, Bernstein deposited it in his business checking account at a local bank. Bernstein also maintained his own funds in this account. Thus, for a brief period, settlement funds belonging to Mr. Smith, as well as moneys owed to medical providers, were commingled with funds belonging to Bernstein. On October 13, 1992, after the check had cleared, Bernstein disbursed to his client all but $480 of the remaining settlement funds.8 As previously noted, however, he retained $9,000 of the proceeds for himself.
On the basis of the facts summarized above, the Hearing Committee and the Board on Professional Responsibility both found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Bernstein had violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct:
Rule 1.5(a) Charging an excessive fee Rules 1.15(a) and 1.17(a) Commingling Rule 8.4(c) Dishonesty9
Each of these violations is well established in the record.
Turning to the commingling charges, the Board found, and we agree, that Bernstein violated Rule 1.15(a) by depositing the settlement funds in Smith's case into Bernstein's own operating account. See, e.g., In re Ross, 658 A.2d 209 (D.C.1995)
. The Board also found, and we again agree, that Bernstein violated Rule 1.17(a) by failing to segregate Smith's funds from his own. See, e.g., id.; In re Hessler, 549 A.2d 700 (D.C.1988) ( ). Bernstein claims that he was primarily a criminal practitioner and that he was unfamiliar with the proscriptions against commingling. This claim, even if factually true, does not constitute a defense to the charges. See Ross, supra, 658 A.2d at 210-11; In re Harrison, 461 A.2d 1034, 1036 n. 3 (D.C.1983). We therefore agree with the Board that Bar Counsel established these violations by clear and convincing evidence.10
Finally, the Board found that Bernstein had engaged in dishonesty, in violation of Rule 8.4(c):
(Citations to record and some internal citations omitted; alterations in original.)
We adopt the foregoing analysis. W...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bolton v. Crowley, Hoge & Fein, P.C.
...third family partner, due to a conflict of interest, by refusing to disclose family partnership records and files).3 See In re Bernstein, 774 A.2d 309, 315 (D.C.2001) (an attorney owes a “fiduciary duty of loyalty, full disclosure and trustworthiness” to a client); see also Herbin v. Hoeffe......
-
In re Hager, 01-BG-995.
...A.2d 1063, 1064-65 (D.C.2001) (per curiam) (being supervised by a practice monitor for first year after reinstatement); In re Bernstein, 774 A.2d 309, 318-19 (D.C.2001) (completing a professional responsibility course); In re McConnell, 667 A.2d 94 (D.C.1995) (per curiam) (attending Alcohol......
- In re Ko. W., No. 98-FS-128
-
In re Tappan
... ... See, e.g., In re ... Bailey, 283 A.3d 1199 (D.C. 2022); In re Marks, ... 252 A.3d 887 (D.C. 2021) (per curiam); In re ... Hargrove, 155 A.3d 375 (D.C. 2017) (per curiam); In ... re Cole, 967 A.2d 1264 (D.C. 2009); In re ... Bernstein, 774 A.2d 309 (D.C. 2001). Accordingly, it is ... ORDERED ... that respondent Richard J. Tappan is hereby suspended from ... the practice of law in the District of Columbia for one year, ... stayed as to all but six months, followed by one year of ... ...