In re Minninberg, 84-60.
| Docket Nº | No. 84-60. |
| Citation | 485 A.2d 149 |
| Case Date | September 25, 1984 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Columbia District |
Page 149
Michael Frisch, Asst. Bar Counsel, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Joseph L. Mayer, Executive Attorney, Washington, D.C., filed the Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility. Wallace E. Shipp, Jr., Deputy Bar Counsel, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for petitioner.
John W. Karr, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Before FERREN and PRYOR, Associate Judges, and YEAGLEY, Associate Judge, Retired.
PER CURIAM:
This disciplinary matter is before the court on a Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility, pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 7(3), recommending that respondent be disbarred. The Board's report was based upon evidence adduced in a proceeding before a Hearing Committee involving complaints against respondent. We accept the findings of fact made by the Board and adopt the recommended disposition.
Two complaints were filed against respondent, each arising from a separate incident. In the first complaint, it was alleged that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(3),2 (4)3 and DR 9-103(A)4 by misappropriating funds received in settlement of the personal injury action of his client, Mrs. Spence. It was also alleged that he violated DR
Page 150
6-101(A)(3),5 DR 7-101(A)(1),6 (2),7 and (3)8 by neglecting and failing to advance the lawful objectives of Mrs. Spence's case, and violated DR 2-106(A),9 by charging Mrs. Spence a fee which was excessive in light of his conduct and the results obtained.
In the second complaint, respondent was charged with dishonest conduct in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4).10 It was alleged that respondent converted to his own use funds which he received in payment of a fee but which he had previously assigned to the Continental Bank, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania as collateral for a loan, and which he had agreed to hold in trust for the bank.
We observe that on August 18, 1981, a "contact member" of a Hearing Committee reviewed Bar Counsel's petition in the second complaint and disapproved the petition. Bar Counsel appealed. On November 18, 1981, Hearing Committee Number Six denied Bar Counsel's Petition to Reconsider Decision of Contact Member, on the grounds that this was a civil matter and did not warrant institution of disciplinary proceedings. One member of the three member committee filed a lengthy dissent to the Committee's opinion. On December 21, 1981, Bar Counsel applied to the Board for reversal of Hearing Committee Number Six's decision. In February 1982, the Board overruled the Committee's conclusion and permitted the filing of the petition against respondent.
With respect to the first complaint, the Hearing Committee found that respondent's neglect of his client's interests violated DR 6-101(A)(3),11 and DR 7-101(A)(1),12 (2),13 and (3)14 and that, in view of his failure to pursue Mrs. Spence's interests, his fee was unreasonable and in violation of DR 2-106(A).15 However, the Committee also concluded that respondent did not intend to embezzle or steal Mrs. Spence's funds and accordingly was not guilty of conduct involving dishonesty, or moral turpitude.16 The Committee made no findings with respect to the charge that respondent had commingled funds in violation of DR 9-102(A).17 With respect to the second complaint, the Committee concluded that the basis for the action was only a civil breach of contract and was not properly the subject of disciplinary proceedings.
On January 3, 1984, the Board adopted some of the Committee's findings but concluded, in contrast to the Hearing Committee, that respondent did violate DR 1-102(A)(3),18 and (4),19 and DR 9-102(A)20 when he withdrew Mrs. Spence's settlement
Page 151
funds and diverted them to his own use. In addition, the Board concluded with respect to the second complaint that respondent's assignment to Continental Bank created a trust relationship with respect to the funds assigned. Respondent's later use of those funds for his own personal expenses without notifying either the Bank, or Mr. Bedford, the guarantor of the loan he received based on the assignment, was a breach of the trust relationship and constituted dishonest conduct in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4).21 The Board recommended that respondent be disbarred for his violations of the Disciplinary Rules.
Given the language of respondent's loan agreement with the bank, it is clear that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Cleaver-Bascombe, 06-BG-858.
...profession. As we said in In re Minninberg, "[m]isappropriation by an attorney of a client's (or other) funds is a most serious offense." 485 A.2d 149, 151 Where we have concluded that the attorney's conduct falls into a category of dishonesty of a flagrant kind we have held disbarment to b......
-
In re Hessler, 87-1233.
...of case, disbarment is clearly the appropriate sanction in this jurisdiction. In re Burton, 472 A.2d 831 (D.C. 1984); In re Minninberg, 485 A.2d 149 (D.C. 1984); In re Burka, 423 A.2d 181 (D.C. 1980); In re Quimby, 123 U.S.App.D.C. 273, 359 F.2d 257 (D.C.C. 1966). See also, In re Hines, 482......
-
In re Stiller, 95-BG-909.
...be punishable under the disciplinary rules as conduct involving dishonesty even if it does not violate the criminal law. In re Minninberg, 485 A.2d 149, 151 Mr. Stiller does not dispute that he structured his currency transactions to prevent scrutiny by the government of the cash that he de......
-
Hoover, Matter of, SB-86-0033-D
...kind of discipline is to be imposed and what procedures are to be followed to protect the public. Couser, supra; accord In re Minninberg, 485 A.2d 149, 151 n. 23 (D.C.App.1984); Cincinnati Bar Association v. Fettner, 8 Ohio St.3d 17, 455 N.E.2d 1288 (1983). See generally Annot., 26 A.L.R.4t......
-
In re Cleaver-Bascombe, 06-BG-858.
...profession. As we said in In re Minninberg, "[m]isappropriation by an attorney of a client's (or other) funds is a most serious offense." 485 A.2d 149, 151 Where we have concluded that the attorney's conduct falls into a category of dishonesty of a flagrant kind we have held disbarment to b......
-
In re Hessler, 87-1233.
...of case, disbarment is clearly the appropriate sanction in this jurisdiction. In re Burton, 472 A.2d 831 (D.C. 1984); In re Minninberg, 485 A.2d 149 (D.C. 1984); In re Burka, 423 A.2d 181 (D.C. 1980); In re Quimby, 123 U.S.App.D.C. 273, 359 F.2d 257 (D.C.C. 1966). See also, In re Hines, 482......
-
In re Stiller, 95-BG-909.
...be punishable under the disciplinary rules as conduct involving dishonesty even if it does not violate the criminal law. In re Minninberg, 485 A.2d 149, 151 Mr. Stiller does not dispute that he structured his currency transactions to prevent scrutiny by the government of the cash that he de......
-
Hoover, Matter of, SB-86-0033-D
...kind of discipline is to be imposed and what procedures are to be followed to protect the public. Couser, supra; accord In re Minninberg, 485 A.2d 149, 151 n. 23 (D.C.App.1984); Cincinnati Bar Association v. Fettner, 8 Ohio St.3d 17, 455 N.E.2d 1288 (1983). See generally Annot., 26 A.L.R.4t......