In re Edwards

• Decision Date: 28 July 2022
• Docket Number: 19-BG-659
• Citation: 278 A.3d 1171
• Parties: IN RE Clarissa Thomas EDWARDS, Respondent. A Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 434607)
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals

278 A.3d 1171

IN RE Clarissa Thomas EDWARDS, Respondent.

A Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 434607)

No. 19-BG-659

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Submitted May 10, 2022

Decided July 28, 2022

Clarissa T. Edwards, pro se.

Hamilton P. Fox, III, Disciplinary Counsel, Myles V. Lynk, Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, and Becky Neal, Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for petitioner.

Before McLeese, Deahl, and Howard, Associate Judges.

Per Curiam:

The Board on Professional Responsibility determined that respondent Clarissa T. Edwards commingled client funds, failed to maintain adequate records of client funds, and made a reckless misrepresentation on a court form. The Board recommended that Ms. Edwards be suspended for two years, with a fitness requirement as a condition of reinstatement. Ms. Edwards contests the Board's finding of reckless misrepresentation. Ms. Edwards also argues that the appropriate sanction is a public censure. Disciplinary Counsel argues that Ms. Edwards's misconduct warrants a three-year suspension with a fitness requirement. We uphold the Board's determination of recklessness and adopt the Board's recommended sanction of a two-year suspension with a fitness requirement.

I.

The Board based its recommendation on the following factual conclusions. In 2009, Ms. Edwards was censured by this court for, among other things, commingling funds and failing to keep complete records of client funds. In re Thomas-Edwards , 967 A.2d 178, 179 (D.C. 2009) (per curiam). Following the censure, Ms. Edwards took several courses about managing law-firm finances and worked with the Practice Management Advisory Service of the District of Columbia Bar. Beginning in 2011, however, Ms. Edwards again began to commingle client funds with her personal funds. She also failed to maintain adequate records of client funds from 2011 through 2015. Her records were so deficient that it was not possible for Disciplinary Counsel to determine whether Ms. Edwards had misappropriated any funds. The Board concluded that this conduct violated D.C. R. Prof. Conduct l.15(a), which prohibits commingling, and D.C. Bar R. XI, § 19(f) (repealed as duplicative of Rule 1.15(a), effective March 1, 2016), which required the keeping of complete records about client funds.

Also, Ms. Edwards twice failed to disclose her 2009 censure to a court. On a pro hac vice application filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, she stated that she had "not been reprimanded in any court nor [had] there been any action in any court pertaining to [her] conduct or fitness as a member of the bar." Shortly afterwards, on a form filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C.), Ms. Edwards was asked to identify "[a]ll occasions, if any, on which you have been held in contempt of Court, convicted of a crime, censured, suspended, disciplined or disbarred by any Court since your last renewal date," to which she replied "none." When opposing counsel in the Virginia matter later raised the error on her pro hac vice form, Ms. Edwards corrected the Virginia form, but she never corrected the D.D.C. form.

The Board concluded that Ms. Edwards's false statement on the D.D.C. form violated D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(c), which prohibits "conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation." The Board concluded that there was not clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Edwards was intentionally dishonest on the D.D.C. form. The Board essentially credited Ms. Edwards's testimony that the original false statement was the result of her rushing through the form. The Board further explained that although opposing counsel had notified Ms. Edwards that her statement on the Virginia pro hac vice application was false, Ms. Edwards had never been notified that her statement on the D.D.C. renewal application was false, and Ms. Edwards thus lacked actual knowledge of the D.D.C. statement's falsity. In the Board's view, Ms. Edwards's claim that the mistake was not intentional was supported by the extensive testimony that Ms. Edwards's work as an attorney was frequently rushed and that Ms. Edwards lacked attention to detail.

On the other hand, the Board concluded that Ms. Edwards's false statement on the D.D.C. form was reckless. The Board gave two principal reasons for that conclusion: (1) given her prior discipline, Ms. Edwards should have been more careful in filling out the D.D.C. form; and (2) once she was alerted to the falsity on the Virginia form, Ms. Edwards ought to have confirmed the accuracy of her recently filed D.D.C. form.

II.

As noted, Ms. Edwards challenges the Board's determination that her failure to correct the D.D.C. form was reckless, arguing that instead she was merely careless. We review de novo the Board's determination that Ms. Edwards acted recklessly. E.g. , In re Dailey , 230 A.3d 902, 909 (D.C. 2020). We agree with the Board's reasoning and its conclusion. The question on the D.D.C. form was very clear, and it is difficult to see how Ms. Edwards could have answered it as she did unless she ignored the text of the question. Once she was advised that she had given a false answer to a similar question on the Virginia form, Ms. Edwards certainly could have been expected to realize her mistake on the D.D.C. form. See generally, e.g. , In re Schuman , 251 A.3d 1044, 1054 n.8 (D.C. 2021) ("Dishonesty can be proven by sufficient proof of recklessness—i.e., proof that [the attorney] consciously disregarded the risk created by [the attorney's] actions.") (internal quotation marks omitted).

III.

This court adopts the sanction recommended by the Board "unless to do so would foster a tendency towards inconsistent dispositions for comparable conduct or would otherwise be unwarranted." D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(h)(1). "The Board's recommended sanction thus comes to the court with a strong presumption in favor of its imposition. Generally speaking, if the Board's recommended sanction falls within a wide range of acceptable outcomes, it will be adopted and imposed." In re Cleaver-Bascombe , 892 A.2d 396, 402 (D.C. 2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "Ultimately, the system of attorney discipline, including the imposition of sanctions, is the responsibility and duty of this court." In re Austin , 858 A.2d 969, 975 (D.C. 2004).

We conclude that the Board's recommended sanction is reasonable and appropriate. In prior disciplinary cases involving commingling and dishonesty, we have imposed a wide range of sanctions, depending on the surrounding circumstances. See, e.g. , In re Marks , 252 A.3d 887, 888-89 (D.C. 2021) (per curiam) (suspending respondent for one year without fitness requirement, where respondent commingled and negligently misappropriated...