In re Robinson, 89-371.
Decision Date | 19 December 1990 |
Docket Number | No. 89-371.,89-371. |
Citation | 583 A.2d 691 |
Parties | In re Wendell ROBINSON, Respondent. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. |
Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
R. Kenneth Mundy, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Wallace E. Shipp, Jr., Deputy Bar Counsel, and Thomas E. Flynn, Washington, D.C., Bar Counsel, for the Office of Bar Counsel.
Before ROGERS, Chief Judge, FARRELL, Associate Judge, and MACK, Senior Judge.
We are called upon to consider a Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. The Board unanimously found that respondent violated five disciplinary rules in the Code on Professional Responsibility: DR 1-102(A)(4) (dishonesty and misrepresentation); DR 9-103(A) ( ); DR 9-103(A)(2) ( ); DR 9-103(B)(3) ( ); and DR 9-103(B)(4) ( ). A majority of the Board recommended that respondent be disbarred because his ethical violations involved misappropriation and intentional dishonesty. Two Board members concurred with the majority's recommendation of disbarment, but recommended as a sanction the imposition of a six-month suspension, with the balance of the disbarment period stayed, and a provision that respondent be placed on probation for two years. One Board member dissented, recommending that the Board suspend respondent for two years.
We accept the Board's findings of fact as supported by substantial evidence, and incorporate Parts I and II of its Report. In accordance with the en banc decision in In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190 (D.C.1990) (en banc), we order that respondent be disbarred. Respondent cashed a settlement check which he used for his own purposes and failed to turn over the client's share to the client despite the client's repeated requests that he do so. He eventually gave his client a check drawn on an account which he knew contained insufficient funds. Nevertheless, he twice told his client that there were sufficient funds. He further stated falsely to his client that the bank had told him the check would be honored. When the client said she intended to file a complaint with Bar Counsel, respondent then offered his client the full amount of the settlement check if she would refrain from so doing. In responding to Bar Coun...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Silva, s. 08–BG–82
...conduct was more reprehensible than that of the respondents in In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190 (D.C.1990) (en banc) and In re Robinson, 583 A.2d 691 (D.C.1990) (per curiam), in which the respondents were disbarred for misappropriation of client funds. H.C. Rep. at 52. Bar Counsel relies on the C......
-
In re Bach
...conduct differed only in degree, not kind, from cases in which the Addams rule has been applied unyieldingly. See, e.g., In re Robinson, 583 A.2d 691 (D.C.1990) (attorney disbarred for misappropriation despite relatively small sum involved, quick restoration of funds, lack of financial harm......
-
IN RE PIERSON, 95-BG-1029
...pecuniary interests. The mitigating circumstances offered by Ms. Pierson are akin to those proffered by the respondent in In re Robinson, 583 A.2d 691 (D.C. 1990), where they were offset by the aggravating factor of dishonesty. We said in that Given the holding of Addams, the mitigating fac......
-
In re Dulansey
...sanction in "virtually all cases" involving intentional misappropriation of client funds. Id. at 191; see also, e.g., In re Robinson, 583 A.2d 691 (D.C.1990). He nonetheless challenges the Board's recommended sanction, primarily1 on the ground that disbarment would deprive him of equal prot......