Matter of Goldstein, 83-653.
| Decision Date | 09 January 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-653.,83-653. |
| Parties | In the Matter of Stanley H. GOLDSTEIN, A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Glen C. Lewis, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Before KERN, MACK and TERRY, Associate Judges.
The Board on Professional Responsibility has submitted a report and recommendation that respondent be formally censured by the court for violation of the District of Columbia Code of Professional Responsibility DR 9-102(B)(4) and DR 6-101 (A)(3).1 Respondent has filed no exceptions to the Board's report. Rule XI, Section 7 requires this court to accept the Board's findings of fact in its report "unless they are unsupported by substantial evidence of record."
It is absolutely clear from the record that there is substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that respondent, the settlement attorney for the sale of certain premises, failed to pay $200 in an escrow account promptly to the seller, the complainant, upon receiving authorization (on more than one occasion) from the purchasers. There is also substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that respondent agreed to aid the complainant in trying to recover $420 from a merchant whom she paid for a wedding dress but then decided not to take. Ultimately, the complainant on her own obtained a refund of $335.
The Board declined to recommend in its report that this court suspend respondent, as the Hearing Committee had recommended in its report to the Board. Rather, the Board concluded that formal censure for respondent's violations was sufficient given its finding that: the respondent's delay in payment of the $200 in escrow "was done as a result of a judgment as to his company's ethical right to set off funds which he believed were owed to him by his client in another matter;" and, that respondent's "neglect of his client's claim [for the money she had paid for a dress she never took delivery of] over a period of months [was] without any resulting injury to his client."
The Board also noted, in concluding "suspension is not warranted in light of the evidence," that respondent had no prior disciplinary record during his ten years as a member of the Bar. We are bound by the Board's recommended disposition under the terms of Rule XI, Section 7 unless such recommendation "would foster a tendency toward inconsistent dispositions for comparable conduct or otherwise would be unwarranted." Given the Board's findings and conclusion we are persuaded that formal censure of respondent in this case is appropriate.
In adopting the Board's report and recommendation, we are mindful that two members of the Board dissented from such report and recommendation2 The dissenters concluded that there "is substantial evidence in the record indicating that respondent misrepresented the status of the small claims case concerning the wedding dress to his client [the complainant]." Accordingly, the dissent would have upheld the Hearing Committee's conclusion that respondent not only did not pay over the escrow fund of $200 promptly to his client and did neglect the matter of obtaining a return of the client's payment for her wedding dress, but also that he misrepresented to her that he had filed an action to recover the money she had paid for the dress. Such misrepresentation was in the dissenters' view a violation of DR 1-102(A)(4). Accordingly, the two dissenters viewed respondent's conduct as meriting suspension rather than formal censure since in their view of the evidence the respondent had violated three disciplinary rules, not just two as the Board's majority concluded.
As to the charge that respondent had made a misrepresentation to his client, the majority of the Board reviewed the record and concluded that:
In light...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Shaw, 00-BG-837.
...209 (D.C. 1995) (thirty-day suspension for failure to notify and pay over funds to third party and another violation,); Matter of Goldstein, 471 A.2d 267 (D.C.1984) (public censure for failure to deliver funds to client, and one other The Board here carefully considered the relevant factors......
-
In re Waller, 86-774.
...DR9-103(B)(4) with respect to one client in one case. Yet we find his conduct more serious than that of the Respondent in In re Goldstein, 471 A.2d 267 (D.C. 1984), where the sanction was a public censure. In the instant case, Respondent's misconduct was motivated by his desire to obtain an......
-
In re Hines
...power to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, its recommendations are by no means binding upon the BPR. See, e.g., In re Goldstein, 471 A.2d 267 (D.C. 1984); In re Stanton, 470 A.2d 281 (D.C. 1983); In re Smith, 403 A.2d 296 (D.C. 1979). In this case the BPR made no findings of fac......
-
In re Gilchrist
...was found to have violated the same two disciplinary rules as respondent and was publicly censured by this court. See also In re Goldstein, 471 A.2d 267 (D.C.1984), in which we ordered censure where the attorney failed to preserve the identity of his client's funds, but had not misappropria......