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. 2 1

- BG

- 2 4 1
I N RE I SAAC H

. M ARKS , S R ., R ESPONDENT
. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 4 1 1706 ) On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility (BDN 059

- 1 8 ) (Decided June 24 , 20 2 1 ) Before T HOMPSON and E ASTERLY , Associate Judges , and N EBEKER , Senior Judge

. P ER C URIAM : The Ad Hoc Hearing Committee issued its R eport concluding that R espondent 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 justice 1 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 condition ed o n completing continuing legal education 2 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 grandd aughter , who was cognitively impaired , as the beneficiary and R espondent as the successor trustee. Additionally, u pon McCloud’s death R espondent 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, R espondent 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, o nce the guardianship was approved, R espondent failed to respond to requests for

commingl ing 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 direct ing Respondent’s deposition. Fur ther, in response to motion s filed for an accounting and later for remov al of Respondent as the trustee, Respondent f iled
responses that included f alse or misleading s tatements and made false or misleading
statement during a hearing . T hose 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 t he trust’s bank account , create a special needs trust, and pursue repayments of loans held by the trust

. T h e Committee concluded that R espondent ’s misappropriation was the result of negligence and a violation of Rule 1.15(a). T he Committee also concluded that R espondent ’s failure to protect his client’s interests v iolated numerous Rules of Professional Conduct

. The majority of the Committee conclude d that Disciplinary Counsel ha d submitted sufficient evidence to support a find ing that Respondent made six intentional ly dishonest s tatements 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
argu ed that the evidence was insufficient to support a Rule 8(c) violation for each of the six statement s , conclud ing that the evidence supported the finding only for a single statement and that the requirement s f o r impos ing a fitness condition had not been met, and recommend ing the imposition of a o ne - year suspension with reinstatement contingent on the completion of the CLE requirement

.

T he Board of Professional Responsibility adopted the majority of the Committee’s findings but concluded that the intent necessary to supp ort 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 viol ations would not occur in the future . The Board recommended a one - year suspension with a CLE condition

.

Respondent file d 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] ourt5

will enter an order imposing the discipline recommended by the Board upon the expiration of the time permit ted for filing exceptions.” See also In re Viehe , 762 A. 2d 5 42, 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 conclusion s and th at th e Board’s recommended sanction of a one

- year suspension with conditions for reinstatement falls within the range of discipline imposed for similar misconduct. 3 T herefore, w e accept the recommendation that respondent be suspended for one

- year and that reinstatement be contingent on the completi o n 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 seriou s interference with the administration of justice); In re Fair , 780 A. 26 1106, 111 4 (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 a nd their effect on eligibility for reinstatement. See D.C. Bar. R. IX § 16(c).