Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic 

and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of 

any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go 

to press. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 21-BG-241

IN RE ISAAC H. MARKS, SR., RESPONDENT.

A Member of the Bar

of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

(Bar Registration No. 411706)

On Report and Recommendation

of the Board on Professional Responsibility

(BDN 059-18)

(Decided June 24, 2021)

Before THOMPSON and EASTERLY, Associate Judges, and NEBEKER, Senior

Judge.

PER CURIAM: The Ad Hoc Hearing Committee issued its Report concluding 

that Respondent negligently misappropriated entrusted funds, made six intentionally 

dishonest statements and representations in court proceedings, failed to protect his 

client’s interests, and undertook actions that seriously interfered with the 

administration of justice1 and recommending that Respondent be suspended for 

 1 District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 1.1 (a) (failure to 

competently represent a client; Rules 1.3(a), (b)(1) and (c) (failure to zealously 

represent client, seek the client’s lawful objectives and act promptly); Rule 1.15(a), 
2

eighteen months with reinstatement conditioned on completing continuing legal 

education2 and a showing of fitness. Specifically, the Hearing Committee found 

that Respondent was retained by McCloud to create a revocable trust naming 

McCloud as the beneficiary and trustee, and upon McCloud’s death naming her 

granddaughter, who was cognitively impaired, as the beneficiary and Respondent as 

the successor trustee. Additionally, upon McCloud’s death Respondent was to 

marshal all trust assets (including the granddaughter’s social security payments that 

were sent to the trust account and loan payments for loans made by McCloud), 

promptly sell the family home, create a special needs trust for the granddaughter, 

and identify a safe-living environment, preferably in an assisted-living facility, for 

the granddaughter. After McCloud’s death, Respondent took control of the trust 

assets and filed a petition to appoint a guardian for the granddaughter. However, 

Respondent conceded that he erroneously withdrew funds from the trust account for 

non-trust purposes and failed to promptly repay the funds. Furthermore, once the 

guardianship was approved, Respondent failed to respond to requests for 

 

commingling and misappropriation of client funds and failure to keep proper 

records); Rule 1.15(c) (failure to notify and deliver client funds); Rule 8.4(c), 

engaging in conduct involving dishonesty); and Rule 8(d) (serious interference with 

the administration of justice). 

2 The Committee recommended a total of nine hours with six hours devoted 

to trust account management and three hours to legal ethics.
3

information on the trust made by the attorney and guardian, resulting in the court 

directing Respondent’s deposition. Further, in response to motions filed for an 

accounting and later for removal of Respondent as the trustee, Respondent filed 

responses that included false or misleading statements and made false or misleading

statement during a hearing. Those actions formed the basis for the Rule 8(c) 

violation. 

Prior to his removal as trustee, Respondent failed to sell or preserve the real 

estate, timely file real estate taxes, forward to the guardian the ward’s social security 

payments that were previously deposited in the trust’s bank account, create a special 

needs trust, and pursue repayments of loans held by the trust. The Committee 

concluded that Respondent’s misappropriation was the result of negligence and a 

violation of Rule 1.15(a). The Committee also concluded that Respondent’s failure 

to protect his client’s interests violated numerous Rules of Professional Conduct. 

The majority of the Committee concluded that Disciplinary Counsel had submitted 

sufficient evidence to support a finding that Respondent made six intentionally 

dishonest statements in violation of Rule 8(c). 
4

Finally, the majority of the Committee determined that the requirements for 

imposing a fitness condition had been satisfied. However, a dissenting opinion 

argued that the evidence was insufficient to support a Rule 8(c) violation for each of 

the six statements, concluding that the evidence supported the finding only for a 

single statement and that the requirements for imposing a fitness condition had not 

been met, and recommending the imposition of a one-year suspension with 

reinstatement contingent on the completion of the CLE requirement. 

The Board of Professional Responsibility adopted the majority of the 

Committee’s findings but concluded that the intent necessary to support a Rule 8(c) 

violation had been established as to only two of Respondent’s statements. The Board 

rejected the recommendation to impose a fitness requirement, concluding that the 

imposition of the legal education condition would ensure that similar violations 

would not occur in the future. The Board recommended a one-year suspension with 

a CLE condition. 

Respondent filed a statement that he does not oppose the Board’s Report and 

Recommendation, and no exceptions were filed by Disciplinary Counsel. Under 

D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(h)(2), “if no exceptions are filed to the Board’s report, the [c]ourt 
5

will enter an order imposing the discipline recommended by the Board upon the 

expiration of the time permitted for filing exceptions.” See also In re Viehe, 762 

A.2d 542, 543 (D.C. 2000) (“When . . . there are no exceptions to the Board’s report 

and recommendation, our deferential standard of review becomes even more 

deferential.”). We are satisfied that the record supports the Board’s findings and 

conclusions and that the Board’s recommended sanction of a one-year suspension 

with conditions for reinstatement falls within the range of discipline imposed for 

similar misconduct.3

 Therefore, we accept the recommendation that respondent be 

suspended for one-year and that reinstatement be contingent on the completion of 

six hours of approved CLE on trust account management and three hours on legal 

ethics.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that respondent Isaac H. Marks, Sr., is hereby suspended for a 

period of one-year and that his reinstatement is contingent on his completion of six 

hours of CLE on trust account management and three hours on legal ethics. 

 3 See, e.g., In re Soninen, 853 A.2d 712, 715 (D.C. 2004) (six-month 

suspension for false statements and serious interference with the administration of 

justice); In re Fair, 780 A. 26 1106, 1114 (D.C. 2001) (six-month suspension is the 

norm for negligent misappropriation of entrusted funds). 
6

Respondent’s attention is directed to the requirements of D.C. Bar. R. IX § 14 and 

their effect on eligibility for reinstatement. See D.C. Bar. R. IX § 16(c).