Matter of Lawrence, 86-428.

• Decision Date: 22 December 1986
• Docket Number: No. 86-428.,86-428.
• Citation: 526 A.2d 931
• Parties: In the Matter of Jephunneh LAWRENCE, A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Respondent.
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals

Page 931

526 A.2d 931 In the Matter of Jephunneh LAWRENCE, A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Respondent. No. 86-428. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Argued October 14, 1986. Decided December 22, 1986.¹

JePhunneh Lawrence, Washington, D.C., pro se.

Michael S. Frisch, Asst. Bar Counsel, with whom Thomas H. Henderson, Jr., Bar Counsel, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for respondent.

Before NEBEKER and MACK, Associate Judges, and GALLAGHER, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM:

This is a review of a report and recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility which found that respondent JePhunneh Lawrence violated Disciplinary Rule 7-101(A)(1) by intentionally failing to seek his client's lawful objectives and DR 7-101(A)(2) by intentionally failing to carry out an employment contract for professional services. The Board recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for ninety days. After a careful review of the record, we accept the Board's findings and adopt its recommended sanction.

The violations here arise out of a series of meetings between respondent and Mr. George E. Perry. Perry sought respondent's advice and services in relation to an employment discrimination claim against the Library of Congress (LOC). At the first meeting on May 27, 1983, Perry informed respondent that the discrimination claim was based on LOC's rejection of Perry's application for a GS-16 position and that the thirty-day limitation period for filing a complaint in the United States District Court was to expire on June 16, 1983.² At the second meeting on May 31, 1983, respondent and Perry signed a standard "Contingent Fee Contract" which included a retainer fee of $1,800. Perry paid $600 of the retainer at that time.

The subject matter of the third and final meeting on June 9, 1983, was hotly disputed in conflicting testimony. Perry testified that he was told that the documentation was excellent, that age discrimination was also involved, and that the complaint would be filed by the deadline. Perry stated that no future appointment was scheduled.

By contrast, respondent testified that prior to the final meeting, he had determined that retaliation for Perry's previous activity against the LOC was the only possible basis for a complaint. He had also realized that Perry's GS-13 status disqualified him on the merits from a GS-16 position unless LOC had issued him a waiver of the grade

Page 932

requirement.³...