In re Tappan

• Citation: 294 A.3d 1105 (Mem)
• Docket Number: 23-BG-0349
• Decision Date: 25 May 2023
• Parties: IN RE Richard J. TAPPAN, Respondent. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 499813)
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals

294 A.3d 1105 (Mem)

IN RE Richard J. TAPPAN, Respondent.

A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 499813)

No. 23-BG-0349

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Decided May 25, 2023

Per Curiam:

This decision is non-precedential. Please refer to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(d) regarding the appropriate citation of this opinion.

In this disciplinary matter, the Hearing Committee recommends approval of a petition for negotiated attorney discipline. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(c). Respondent Richard J. Tappan voluntarily acknowledged that, in connection with his appointment as guardian and conservator in a probate case, he failed to provide competent representation and to serve the client with commensurate skill and care; failed to represent the client zealously and diligently and to act with reasonable promptness; charged unreasonable fees in his fee petitions to the probate court; failed to maintain complete records of entrusted funds; and engaged in conduct involving at least reckless dishonesty and that seriously interfered with the administration of justice. As a result, respondent admits that he violated D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1(a)-(b), 1.3(a) & (c), 1.5(a), 1.15(a), and 8.4(c)-(d). The proposed discipline consists of a one-year suspension, stayed as to all but six months followed by one year of probation with conditions.

Having reviewed the Committee's recommendation in accordance with our procedures in uncontested disciplinary cases, see D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(d), we agree that this case is appropriate for negotiated discipline and that "the agreed-upon sanction is ‘justified,’ " In re Mensah , 262 A.3d 1100, 1104 (D.C. 2021) (per curiam) (quoting D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(c)(3)), given the sanctions we have previously imposed for similar sets of violations in contested cases. 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 probation with the following conditions:

(i) Respondent must take three hours of preapproved continuing legal education courses related to the maintenance of trust accounts, recordkeeping, and/or safekeeping client property, and he must certify and provide documentary proof that he has met this requirement to Disciplinary Counsel within six months from the date of this opinion;

(ii) Before resuming the practice of law, respondent must meet with Dan Mills, Manager of the Practice Management Advisory Service (PMAS) of the District of Columbia Bar, or a PMAS monitor, and execute a waiver

...