IN RE LYLES, 94-BG-1408

Decision Date18 July 1996
Docket NumberNo. 94-BG-1408,94-BG-1408
PartiesIn re Pamela L. LYLES, Respondent, A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
CourtD.C. Court of Appeals

Pamela L. Lyles, respondent pro se.

H. Clay Smith, III, Assistant Bar Counsel, for petitioner, the Office of Bar Counsel. Leonard H. Becker, Bar Counsel, entered an appearance for petitioner.

Before TERRY, SCHWELB, and RUIZ, Associate Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The Board on Professional Responsibility ("the Board") has recommended that respondent, a member of our bar, be suspended from the practice of law for six months, and that she be required to demonstrate her fitness to practice before being reinstated. While this case was pending, the Board filed a motion with the court seeking respondent's temporary suspension under Rule XI, § 3(c) of this court's Rules Governing the Bar. The court granted the motion and temporarily suspended respondent on December 15, 1995, pending a final decision in her case.

A copy of the Board's report and recommendation, in slightly edited form, is appendedto this opinion. Respondent did not file a brief before the Board, and has not filed with this court either a brief or any exceptions to the Board's recommendation.1 We are satisfied that the findings of the Board are supported by substantial evidence and that the proposed six-month suspension, coupled with a fitness requirement, is an appropriate sanction. It is therefore

ORDERED that respondent, Pamela L. Lyles, is suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of six months, and that she shall prove her fitness to practice law before being reinstated. Since it appears that respondent has not yet filed the affidavit required by Rule XI, § 14(g) of our Rules Governing the Bar, even though our order of December 15, 1995, specifically drew her attention to that requirement, her six-month suspension shall take effect upon the filing of that affidavit. See Rule XI, § 16(c). Her temporary suspension under Rule XI, § 3(c) shall continue until then.

APPENDIX

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

IN THE MATTER OF PAMELA L. LYLES, ESQ. RESPONDENT

Bar Docket Nos. 443-93, 91-94, 218-94, 493-93

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

Hearing Committee Number Eight conducted a two-day hearing on a petition that consolidated four separate complaints against Respondent. Four separate clients filed the complaints with the Office of Bar Counsel. The Hearing Committee found that Bar Counsel sustained his burden of showing most of the violations — at least one with respect to each of the four clients — and recommended that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for six months, with a requirement that she prove her fitness to practice before reinstatement. The Factual Background and Hearing Committee's Findings of Fact below are drawn almost verbatim from the Hearing Committee's very capably written Report and Recommendation. We defer to the Hearing Committee's factual findings. See In re Micheel, 610 A.2d 231, 234 (D.C. 1992). For the reasons explained below, we also agree with the Hearing Committee's recommendation regarding sanction.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Count I relates to Respondent's representation of client Ronald M. Nelson in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy matter (Docket No. 443-93). As the result of her conduct in that matter, Respondent was charged with three violations of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct:

(a) Rule 1.1(b), in that she failed to serve Mr. Nelson with the skill and care commensurate with that generally afforded to clients by other attorneys in similar matters;

(b) Rule 1.3(a), in that she failed to represent Mr. Nelson zealously and diligently within the bounds of the law; and

(c) Rule 8.4(d), in that her failure to appear at a July 30, 1993, hearing and her failure to timely file an amended bankruptcy plan was conduct that seriously interfered with the administration of justice.

Count II relates to Respondent's representation of client John E. Green in his Chapter 13 bankruptcy matter (Docket No. 218-94). She was charged in this matter with a violation of:

(a) Rule 8.4(d), in that her failure to appear at a bankruptcy creditors' hearingon April 8, 1994, seriously interfered with the administration of justice.

Count III grows out of Respondents' representation of client Rita M. Monk in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy matter in the District of Maryland (Docket No. 91-94). As the result of her conduct while representing Ms. Monk, Respondent was charged with violating:

(a) Rule 1.1(b), in that she failed to represent Ms. Monk with the requisite skill and care; and

(b) Rule 1.3(a), in that she failed to represent Ms. Monk zealously and diligently within the bounds of the law.

Count IV relates to Respondent's representation of Mr. and Mrs. Melvin Scriven in their Chapter 13 bankruptcy (Docket No. 493-93). As in Count III, Respondent was charged with violations of:

(a) Rule 1.1(b), in that she failed to serve Mr. and Mrs. Scriven with the requisite skill and care; and

(b) Rule 1.3(a), in that she failed to represent Mr. and Mrs. Scriven zealously and diligently within the bounds of the law.

1. The Hearing Committee held a two-day hearing at which Respondent appeared and represented herself. Bar Counsel's exhibits ("BX") were admitted without objection.

2. Bar Counsel called as witnesses Rita Monk and Gregory Johnson, Esquire, on Count III and Lynne and Melvin Scriven on Count IV. Bar Counsel presented his case on Counts I (Ronald M. Nelson) and II (John E. Green) through documentary evidence. Bar Counsel also called Merrill Cohen, Esquire, who was recognized without objection as an expert witness in the field of bankruptcy, on the issue of the care and skill required of attorneys representing clients in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases. (Tr. I at 196-197).

3. Respondent called her paralegal John Edmond as a witness and testified in her own behalf. Respondent's Exhibits ("RX") 1, 8 and 9 were received in evidence. (Tr. I at 59; Tr. II at 54 and 106).

4. Respondent opened her defense by briefly alluding to the fact that she suffered from major depression for which she was receiving regular medical care and that she was taking Amtripoline under a prescription from her psychiatrist.1 (Tr. II at 89-90. She later described her psychiatric condition in more detail. (Tr. II at 171-180). At the conclusion of the hearing, the Hearing Committee allowed Respondent 10 days to determine whether she intended to present evidence of her psychiatric condition in mitigation.

5. On March 24, 1994, Respondent filed a brief statement requesting the opportunity to present mitigating circumstances. Out of concern for her privacy, Respondent did not proffer on the record any substantive facts to support her disability but apparently provided some type of proffer to Assistant Bar Counsel. A status conference was held on May 5, 1995, and Respondent was placed on a strict schedule for compliance with Board Rule 7.6. She was given a deadline of May 17, 1995, to determine how she would proceed. On May 17, 1995, Respondent requested an additional 10 days, until May 27, 1995, to comply. When Respondent failed to file any response or request by June 20, 1995, the Hearing Committee served notice that it would file its report to the Board in July 1995 and invited any further submissions from Bar Counsel or Respondent by June 30, 1995. Respondent made no further filing with the Hearing Committee. Although she took exception to the Hearing Committee's Report and Recommendation, she failed to make any filing of substance before the Board. She accordingly waived oral argument before the Board. BPR Rule 13.3.

HEARING COMMITTEE'S FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent Pamela L. Lyles is a member of the Bar of the District of Columbia. She was admitted by motion on January 27, 1983, and assigned Bar Number 368523.

2. Respondent testified that she has practiced bankruptcy law since 1974 or 1975.(Tr. II at 89, 106-107).2 Her particular specialty is representing clients who are facing foreclosure on their homes.

Count I: Ronald M. Nelson

3. On May 8, 1993, Respondent was retained by Ronald M. Nelson to represent him in filing a petition under Chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. A written agreement was executed wherein Mr. Nelson agreed to pay her $775 in legal fees plus the $150 filing fee. (BX 22).

4. On June 4, 1994, Respondent filed a Chapter 13 petition and proposed payment plan on behalf of Mr. Nelson in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland in a petition styled In re Ronald M. Nelson, Bankruptcy Case No. 93-1-3165-PM. (BX 24).

5. In a written notice dated July 1, 1993, the Bankruptcy Court scheduled a Section 341 meeting of creditors for July 30, 1993, at 11:30 a.m. at the Office of the United States Trustee. In that same notice, a confirmation hearing was set for August 4, 1993, at 2:00 p.m. (BX 24(a), BX 26).

6. On July 30, 1993, Mr. Nelson appeared in the Office of the United States Trustee ("Trustee") for his Section 341 hearing; Respondent failed to appear. After waiting one hour for Respondent, the Trustee declined to interrogate Mr. Nelson concerning his bankruptcy plan in the absence of his counsel and terminated the meeting.

7. Respondent did not appear at the July 30, 1993, meeting of creditors, purportedly because she did not receive the mailed notice described above in ¶ 5. Respondent, however, did not provide any explanation as to why she had not inquired into the status of the Nelson matter when she had not received a scheduling order during the two-month period following her filing of the bankruptcy petition.

8. Respondent appeared at the scheduled August 4, 1993, hearing. Confirmation of the proposed plan was not approved because it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • In re Evans
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • April 27, 2006
    ...re Shepherd, BDNs. 313-98 & 83-89, at 20 (BPR Dec. 10, 2003) (pending appeal) (unexcused failure to appear at hearing); In re Lyles, 680 A.2d 408 (D.C.1996) (per curiam) (failing to obey court order); In re Robinson, 635 A.2d 352 (D.C.1993) (per curiam) (same); In re Jones, 521 A.2d 1119 (D......
  • In re George
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • March 18, 1999
    ...to serve client with skill and care commensurate with that afforded to clients by other lawyers in similar matters); In re Lyles, 680 A.2d 408, 414-18 (D.C.1996) (imposing a six-month suspension for various counts of failing to represent clients with diligence and zeal, failing to serve cli......
  • In re Cater
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • November 23, 2005
    ...with the related violations (commingling, deficient record keeping) exhibited here.") (emphasis added). 26. See, e.g., In re Lyles, 680 A.2d 408, 419 (D.C.1996) (Board report) (imposing a fitness requirement where, among other things, the respondent was suffering from serious depression); S......
  • In re Edwards
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • March 17, 2005
    ...cocaine addiction even though the misconduct for which he was suspended was not attributable to his addiction); see also In re Lyles, 680 A.2d 408, 419 (D.C.1996) (Board report) (imposing a fitness requirement where, inter alia, respondent volunteered that she suffered from serious depressi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT