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. 16-BG-633

IN RE BRANDI S. NAVE, RESPONDENT.

A Suspended Member of the Bar

of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

(Bar Registration Number 490964)

On Report and Recommendation

of the Board of Professional Responsibility

(BDN-234-10, BDN-308-12, BDN-128-13 & BDN-186-13)

(Argued October 17, 2017 Decided March 8, 2018)

Brandi S. Nave, pro se.

Hamilton P. Fox, III, Disciplinary Counsel, with whom Wallace E. Shipp, 

Jr., Disciplinary Counsel at the time the briefs were filed, and Jennifer P. Lyman, 

Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, were on the brief, for the Office of 

Disciplinary Counsel.

Before THOMPSON and BECKWITH, Associate Judges, and FARRELL, Senior 

Judge.

Opinion for the court PER CURIAM.

Opinion by Associate Judge THOMPSON, concurring in part and concurring 

in the order of discipline, at page 12.

PER CURIAM: The Board on Professional Responsibility (the Board) 

recommends that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in the District of 

03/08/2018
2

Columbia because of clear and convincing evidence that respondent intentionally 

misappropriated entrusted funds. District of Columbia Rule of Professional 

Conduct 1.15 (a). The Board relatedly concluded that respondent had committed 

thirty-four separate violations of Rule 1.15 (c) (failure promptly to deliver funds) 

and 1.15 (d) (failure to distribute funds).1 We accept the Board‘s recommendation.

I.

Respondent‘s conduct giving rise to the violations stemmed from her 

personal injury law practice and transactions that followed a common pattern, 

namely: respondent‘s clients received medical treatment from a chiropractor and 

signed (along with respondent) the medical provider‘s authorization and 

assignment form creating liens on the proceeds of any settlement amounts received 

by the client-patients from insurers. Respondent then negotiated a settlement with 

the involved insurance carrier, normally including also a reduction of the medical 

 

1

 Hearing Committee No. 5 had likewise found that respondent committed 

misappropriation and the related violations, but concluded that the 

misappropriation was at most negligent — a conclusion the Board rejected on 

review.
3

bills by the treatment providers.2 During the time period at issue, respondent 

referred her personal injury clients to two different chiropractors or chiropractor 

clinics, Dr. Mohammed Yousefi and Medical Support Services (MSS). 

Respondent‘s failure to hold in trust and timely disburse funds received pursuant to 

these settlements and owed these providers formed the basis of the violations 

found by the Hearing Committee and the Board.

A.

Misappropriation is ―any unauthorized use of [a] client‘s funds entrusted to 

[the lawyer], including not only stealing but also unauthorized temporary use for 

the lawyer‘s own purpose, whether or not [the lawyer] derives any personal gain or 

benefit therefrom.‖ In re Anderson, 778 A.2d 330, 335 (D.C. 2001) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). ―Misappropriation happens when the 

balance in [the lawyer‘s] trust account falls below the amount due the client‖ or 

 

2

 The settlements were recorded on Client Disbursement sheets that, as the 

Board explained, were ―precisely what they purport[ed] to be: final documents 

reflecting the financial components of each settlement, containing the client‘s

explicit approval of the disposition of settlement funds.‖
4

third persons to whom the client is indebted. In re Ahaghotu, 75 A.3d 251, 256 

(D.C. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).3 The Board and the 

Hearing Committee both concluded that twice, first in the period from October 5–

8, 2012, and again on October 16, 2012, respondent‘s trust account balance fell 

below the cumulative amount of $41,893 owed to the two medical providers

involved. Respondent contends that Disciplinary Counsel failed to prove this trust 

deficiency by presenting no ―evidence of the actual dates [o]n which insurance 

checks were received [from the insurers] and deposited‖ in her trust account. 

Instead, respondent argues, Disciplinary Counsel relied on ―circumstantial 

inferences‖ from the evidence that effectively ―transfer[red] the burden of proof‖ 

to respondent to show that her trust account had funds sufficient to cover the 

amounts owed the medical providers.

We reject these arguments. First, as the Board recognized, the record 

reveals six instances of actual deposits of settlement checks to respondent‘s trust 

account at around the time corresponding settlement disbursement sheets reflect 

 

3

 ―Funds of clients or third persons that are in the lawyer‘s possession (trust 

funds) shall be kept in one or more trust accounts . . . .‖ District of Columbia Rule 

of Professional Conduct 1.15 (a) (emphasis added).
5

receipt of the funds from insurers. Further, as the Board properly determined from 

the record, respondent ―repeatedly and insistently urged [before the Hearing 

Committee] that all settlement funds at issue . . . were timely deposited in her trust 

fund‖ contemporaneously with their receipt. Specifically, respondent testified that 

―it could be ten, fourteen days‖ between when the client signed the settlement 

sheet and when the check was received from the insurance company, and another 

―three or four days before [the check] can get to the bank.‖ Indeed, she 

acknowledged that ―the majority of the insurance companies‖ released the 

settlement funds before the disbursement sheets were signed. And in her Answer

to the Specification of Charges, she likewise admitted that ―on or about‖ the same 

dates she would both settle most claims with the insurers ―and receive[] settlement 

funds.‖ See On or About, BLACK‘S LAW DICTIONARY (10th ed. 2014) (defining 

―on or about‖ as ―[a]pproximately; at or around the time specified‖). Thus, by the 

time of the first alleged misappropriation from October 5–8, 2012, respondent‘s 

trust fund should have held funds equal to the outstanding debts to the two medical 

providers, but did not. Disciplinary Counsel offered convincing evidence that, 

although respondent owed the providers an aggregate of at least $40,893 for some 

nineteen selected cases as of August 1, 2012, by the alleged misappropriation dates 
6

of October 5–8 and 16, she had in the trust account less than $37,000, when no 

disbursements for those cases had yet been made to the providers.

In attempting to show that Disciplinary Counsel had not established the 

necessary pre-October link between settlements and corresponding payments 

received from the insurers, respondent identified cases in which she argued that 

settlements were reached and payments received much later than the alleged 

October misappropriation dates. But in fact those cases regularly turned out to 

have followed this pattern: the medical provider would agree to reductions 

reflected on the disbursement sheets, then withdraw those reductions after 

respondent, though paid by the insurers, failed to pay the bills (often claiming 

―fraudulent‖ billing), whereupon either the provider would reinstate the reductions

after further negotiation or the patients would be saddled with paying the balance. 

See infra Part II. The Hearing Committee thus found that the ―19 cases relied on 

by [Disciplinary] Counsel as evidence of misappropriation were settled or had 

Client Disbursement sheets signed at least 46 days prior to October 5, 2012,‖ and

concluded that this was ―clear and convincing evidence that the settlement checks 

for these 19 clients were received and should have been deposited in Respondent‘s 

trust account prior to October 5, 2012.‖ At best, respondent has been able to 
7

nibble at the edges of this conclusion, certainly not enough to persuade us that the 

Hearing Committee and the Board erred in finding from the discrepancy between 

client funds owed and possessed by respondent, and those maintained in the trust 

account, that respondent committed misappropriation.

B.

Respondent does not contend that she maintained more than one trust or 

escrow account, such that Disciplinary Counsel‘s proof rested on an incomplete 

picture of how she kept the funds received from insurers in escrow. Nor does she 

assert that funds received from the insurers and owed the medical providers were 

kept separate (uncommingled) in a way other than by deposit in her trust account. 

Compare In re Ingram, 584 A.2d 602, 603 (D.C. 1991) (no misappropriation 

because entrusted funds, though not deposited in trust account, were ―kept . . . 

intact in the client‘s file‖). Instead, to justify her failure to maintain the funds in 

trust or timely pay the obligations, respondent argues additionally that the

providers, MSS especially, engaged in ―fraudulent billing practices‖ in amounts 

they charged for services such as X-rays. But the Board and the Hearing 

Committee properly rejected this argument by pointing out (in the Hearing 
8

Committee‘s words) that in ―all of these matters, there is no evidence that any 

insurer or any third party challenged the accuracy or validity of the charges on 

MSS‘s bills‖ before agreeing to a settlement. As the Hearing Committee

explained, respondent‘s duty to pay the providers once the insurers had settled ―far 

outweighed her own interests in evaluating the accuracy and integrity of medical 

bills for which she had already received a settlement check.‖ And, if respondent 

had any remaining dispute with a provider as to the correct amount to be disbursed 

for treatments, the proper course of action was for her to escrow the funds until the 

dispute was resolved, District of Columbia Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15 (d), 

which she failed to do.

4

 

4

 The Hearing Committee found ―duplicitous‖ respondent‘s argument that

the entire amounts she owed the providers were in dispute. At the same time, the 

Board noted, even if one ―were to credit [that] mistaken argument,‖ respondent 

―would have had to maintain those greater amounts in escrow. . . . For the 19 

clients at issue, the unreduced chiropractors‘ bills totaled more than $81,858, far in 

excess of the approximately $37,000 contained in the account on the relevant 

dates.‖
9

II.

We also agree with the Board that respondent‘s misappropriation was 

intentional. The deficiency in respondent‘s trust account on the dates in question 

had to be viewed, as the Board recognized, against the background of respondent‘s 

―persistent pattern of withholding funds from third parties to whom those funds 

belonged.‖ In the case of the monies owed Dr. Yousefi, respondent disbursed the 

funds after delays ranging from forty-one months to more than six years after the 

client approved payment (notwithstanding respondent‘s notation on some 

disbursement sheets that she had ―pre-paid‖ the chiropractor). In the case of the 

MSS patients, in all but two matters respondent delayed at least nine months 

between receiving settlement funds and paying the provider. The Board found it 

significant that respondent‘s ―intransigence in [paying MSS] actually prejudiced 

many of her clients,‖ because she ―exposed them to direct claims by MSS for 

payment of its bills (for which they remained responsible)‖ and even ―increased 

that exposure because MSS, not having been paid, withdrew many of the invoice 
10

reductions to which it had earlier agreed.‖5 The Board likewise considered, as 

bearing on respondent‘s intent, testimony concerning statements she had made to 

Dr. Yousefi about using funds owed providers to pay legal expenses in contentious 

personal litigation of her own.6

In sum, the Board unanimously determined by clear and convincing 

evidence that respondent‘s misappropriation, ―part of a pattern of misconduct —

including 34 discrete financially-based Rules violations — that transpired over the 

course of more than a year,‖ when combined with her ―fail[ure] to explain why 

[the] misappropriation took place‖7and ―utterly meritless excuses for her failures

 

5

The Board also agreed with the Hearing Committee that respondent‘s 

purported ―investigation‖ of MSS for billing fraud (as the reason for the delayed 

payments) was not genuine; rather, the belated fraud claim was ―triggered . . . by 

MSS‘s complaint to Disciplinary Counsel . . . .‖

6

 The Hearing Committee, despite its conclusion of negligence, found 

repeated instances of ―threats and bullying [by respondent toward the providers] in 

her effort to clear her files of overdue payments.‖ Respondent‘s delay in paying 

bills for undisputed treatment, it said, was intended as ―leverage to resolve all 

outstanding matters‖ and ―demonstrate[d] an appalling callousness towards the 

duty she owed to the doctors.‖

7

The Board may properly consider, as part of the evidence bearing on 

whether Disciplinary Counsel has met its burden of proof, ―an attorney‘s 

 (continued...)
11

promptly to pay her clients‘ medical providers,‖ rose to the level of intentional 

misappropriation requiring disbarment. See In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190 (D.C. 

1990) (en banc). The Board‘s report meticulously substantiates that conclusion, 

and we agree with it. Even if we were to conclude that respondent‘s indifference 

toward her obligations to the providers was reckless rather than intentional, the 

result would be the same. In re Anderson, 778 A.2d at 338.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that respondent Brandi S. Nave is disbarred 

from the practice of law in the District of Columbia, effective thirty days from the 

date of this opinion. For the purpose of reinstatement, the period of disbarment 

will begin to run from the filing of the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 

(g). See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16 (c).

So ordered.

______________

(...continued)

explanation for — or conversely inability to explain satisfactorily — the use of a 

client‘s funds . . . .‖ In re Thompson, 579 A.2d 218, 221 (D.C. 1990).
12

THOMPSON, Associate Judge, concurring in part and concurring in the order 

of discipline: I readily agree with my colleagues and with the conclusion of the 

Hearing Committee and the Board on Professional Responsibility (the Board) that 

there is clear and convincing evidence that respondent committed numerous 

violations of Rule 1.15 (c) (failure promptly to deliver funds) and 1.15 (d) (failure 

to distribute funds). I have had a great deal more trouble agreeing that Disciplinary 

Counsel proved by clear and convincing evidence that respondent misappropriated 

client funds (and, under our case law, must be disbarred). Ultimately, I am 

persuaded that the record evidence supports the conclusion that respondent‘s trust 

account was out of trust on the dates Disciplinary Counsel alleged, but I write 

separately to explain why I have reached this conclusion. Along the way, I explain 

why I am not entirely satisfied with the reasoning on which the Board relied.

Disciplinary Counsel‘s proof of misappropriation consisted chiefly of 

evidence that it contends shows that by August 1, 2012, respondent owed the 

medical providers an aggregate of $41,893 for nineteen selected cases, but, on the 

dates of October 5–8 and October 16, 2012, had a balance in her trust account of 

no more than $36,780, even though no disbursements had yet been made to the 

medical providers for those cases. This evidence — showing that respondent‘s 
13

escrow account was out of trust by $5,113 during the October 5–8 period and out 

of trust by $5,210 on October 16 — is summarized in a table on page 37 of the 

Board‘s Report and Recommendation (―Report‖).8 The premise that respondent 

owed the providers the amounts shown on the table as of the ―settlement dates‖ 

indicated is that once the client had signed a ―disbursement sheet‖ (or ―settlement 

sheet‖) approving the disposition of settlement funds, the amounts specified on the 

sheet were owed to the provider. The Board concluded that the disbursement 

sheets ―clearly and convincingly establish[ed] the date[s] upon which [r]espondent 

received settlement funds‖ from the relevant insurance companies. 

The Hearing Committee, however, found — and the hearing testimony 

supports its finding — that settlement checks might not be received until after the 

client signed the disbursement sheet.9 The Board was ―obliged to accept the 

 

8

 Although the Hearing Committee found that respondent‘s escrow account 

was out of trust on October 5–8 and October 16, the Board stated that the latter 

out-of-trust date was October 19, which appears to be a typographical error. It 

appears that the three-day discrepancy would not alter the outcome of the Board‘s 

analysis, and it does not alter my own analysis.

9

 Respondent explained that the date the client signed the ―disbursement 

sheet‖ was not ―[t]he full and final settlement date.‖ Rather, she testified, in some 

 (continued...)
14

[H]earing [C]ommittee‘s factual findings if those findings are supported by 

substantial evidence in the record, viewed as a whole.‖ In re Micheel, 610 A.2d 

231, 234 (D.C. 1992) (citing In re Thompson, 583 A.2d 1006, 1008 (D.C. 1990)). 

Accordingly, the Board should not have assumed that respondent received 

settlement funds on the ―settlement dates‖ shown on the table at page 37 of the 

Board‘s Report. The Board stated that it had ―definitively determined the dates 

upon which [r]espondent actually received settlement payments,‖ but I do not 

believe the Board did so or was able to do so on the evidence presented.

______________

(...continued)

cases her office ―g[a]ve [clients] the disbursement sheet to sign so [the office] can 

request . . . the check.‖ Testifying about one of the disbursement sheets signed by 

a client, respondent explained that the document was ―what we prepare for the 

client to give them a full view of what to expect if the case is settled. . . . [I]t just 

gives the client a full view, if everything pans out correctly, . . . [of] the amount 

that [the client] will be receiving.‖ Thus, respondent testified, a disbursement 

sheet did not always mean that there had been a final settlement. Sometimes, 

respondent explained, she would ―effectuate settlement, proposed settlement, to the 

client and [only thereafter] received the final offer from the insurance company.‖ 

Also, according to respondent, provider‘s agreements to reduce their bills did not 

mean that a settlement was final; she testified that sometimes, if her office had 

―something close to a final offer‖ from the insurance company, the office would 

―ask for a reduction‖ from the provider. The Hearing Committee did not discredit 

(and, indeed, appears to have credited) such testimony.
15

As an alternative rationale for its conclusion that respondent had received 

insurance company funds by the dates shown on the table, the Board relied on what 

it referred to as respondent‘s ―unequivocal[]‖ Answer to the Specification of 

Charges, in which she admitted that she received checks ―on or about‖ specified 

dates (all of which were prior to the October 2012 putative out-of-trust dates). For 

example, respondent admitted in her Answer that ―[o]n or about June 13, 2012, 

[she] settled a case on behalf of her client, Latia Proctor, and received settlement 

funds totaling $7,000‖; that ―[o]n or about June 19, 2012, [she] settled a case on 

behalf of her client, DeAngelo Wooten, and received settlement funds totaling 

$6,800‖; and that ―[o]n or about July 3, 2012, [she] settled a case on behalf of her 

client, Ayonia Allen, and received settlement funds totaling $16,500.‖ 

This court‘s case law, however, establishes that ―the phrase  ̳on or about‘ 

encompasses more than the days immediately before and after the date alleged in 

an indictment or petition.‖ In re E.H., 967 A.2d 1270, 1274 n.6 (D.C. 2009) 

(citing Williams v. United States, 756 A.2d 380, 389 (D.C. 2000)); see also Ingram 

v. United States, 592 A.2d 992, 1007 (D.C. 1991) (―When an indictment charges 

that the offense occurred  ̳on or about‘ a certain date, . . . a defendant is on notice 

that a particular date is not critical.‖). ―On or about‖ can cover a period several 
16

months before or after the date specified. See, e.g., Pace v. United States, 705 

A.2d 673, 677–78 (D.C. 1998) (no prejudicial variance between indictment and 

evidence at trial when indictment charged that offense occurred on or about April 

1994 and evidence at trial established that offenses occurred sometime during fivemonth period between late December 1993 and late May 1994). Accordingly, and 

especially in light of what the Board characterized as ―the total disarray of 

[r]espondent‘s records,‖10 I do not believe that respondent‘s admissions to ―on or 

about dates‖ can be taken as clear and convincing evidence that respondent had 

received insurance checks relating to many of the cases before the putative 

out-of-trust dates.11 

 

10

 I note that Disciplinary Counsel did not charge a violation of Rule 1.15 

(a), which ―requires attorneys to keep  ̳complete records‘ of their trust account 

funds . . .  ̳so that the documentary record itself tells the full story of how the 

attorney handled client or third-party funds and whether the attorney complied with 

his fiduciary obligation that client or third-party funds not be 

misappropriated . . . .‘‖ 

11

 Respondent is correct that, as to some cases on which the Board relied for 

its conclusion of misappropriation, ―[t]he record is devoid of evidence of the actual 

dates [o]n which insurance checks were received and deposited . . . .‖ 
17

The Board, discussing Disciplinary Counsel‘s ― ̳account balance‘ theory of 

proof‖ of misappropriation, stated that ―the most appropriate means of proving 

[that] entrusted money [wa]s placed in an escrow account‖ is ―direct proof‖ of 

individual deposits, something Disciplinary Counsel offered as to only five or six 

cases involved in this matter. The Board did not hold Disciplinary Counsel to that 

standard, however, because of what it described as respondent‘s ―repeated[] and 

insistent[] urg[ing] that all the settlement funds at issue in this case were timely 

deposited in her trust account.‖ The more fundamental issue in this case, however, 

is not whether respondent timely deposited settlement funds when received but 

when she actually received them from the insurance companies.12 Disciplinary 

Counsel asserts that it had respondent‘s trust account records and could have 

introduced additional proof about the dates when respondent received insurance 

company settlement funds. Given the ―gravity with which th[is] court views 

intentional misappropriation,‖ and the ―harsh[ness]‖ of the sanction for 

 

12

 As the majority opinion notes, respondent did testify that settlement 

checks might not be received for up to two weeks after the client signed a 

disbursement sheet, but she also testified that when a check was received from the 

insurance company ―just really depends,‖ and that her office had ―seen different 

variations.‖ 
18

misappropriation ―in comparison to sanctions for other disciplinary violations 

involving conduct some may view as roughly equivalent misconduct,‖13 I believe 

that as a general rule, Disciplinary Counsel should introduce such evidence when it 

is available. Disciplinary Counsel‘s failure to do so appears to have led the Board 

to rely on shortcuts such as those described above, which, in my view, do not 

amount to clear and convincing evidence of misappropriation. 

I have looked deeper into the record evidence for other evidence of dates by 

which respondent received funds that Disciplinary Counsel alleged and the 

Hearing Committee and Board found she misappropriated.14 I have focused on 

cases in which clients signed disbursement sheets in 2012, within six months of the 

putative out-of-trust dates (such that respondent could possibly have received 

settlement funds ―on or about‖ the dates when the clients signed their disbursement 

 

13

 In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190, 198 (D.C. 1990) (citations omitted). This 

court has said that there is ―nothing worse‖ than misappropriation of client funds, 

id. at 194 (citation omitted), and that ―[s]uch misconduct demonstrates absence of 

the basic qualities for membership in an honorable profession.‖ Id. at 193.

14

 In this case, I believe this level of scrutiny is required given that there was 

―no evidence that [respondent] withdrew any money for her own use‖ and ―no 

evidence that [she] benefited financially from the [alleged] unauthorized use.‖ 
19

sheets but after the putative out-of-trust dates). I have looked for evidence of 

whether the clients had received settlement checks before the putative out-of-trust 

dates, on what I believe is a reasonable assumption that respondent would not have 

issued a settlement check to a client if she had not received payment from the 

relevant insurer. 

As to clients Barbara Brown, Bernadine Ramsey, Ishara Cormack, Leroy 

Stroy, and Dajuan Gant, there is hearsay evidence that they received their 

settlement disbursements by August 2012.15 Specifically, the record contains 

notations by a Medical Support Services (MSS) investigator memorializing the 

client‘s (or a relative‘s) confirmation that the client received a settlement check by 

August 22, 2012 (or, in the case of Stroy, a disbursement sheet notation about a 

client ―[d]isbursement received on July 19, 2012‖). On the basis of this evidence, I 

am satisfied that respondent received funds from the insurers involved in these 

 

15

 The Hearing Committee found that evidence was presented regarding 

when respondent‘s clients were paid in only five cases. The Board describes such 

evidence as being offered in six cases rather than in five as noted by the Hearing 

Committee. These findings overlook the hearsay evidence, which ―is admissible in 

attorney disciplinary proceedings.‖ See In re Cater, 887 A.2d 1, 6 (D.C. 2005).
20

clients‘ cases that should have been in her trust account by the October 2012 outof-trust dates.

The record contains no such hearsay evidence pertaining to respondent‘s 

clients Latia Proctor, DeAngelo Wooten, and Ayonia Allen.16 The record also 

provides a basis to question whether respondent received funds relating to these 

three clients by the putative out-of-trust dates. The Hearing Committee heard 

evidence showing that in November 2012, Erik Tyrone, an attorney for two of the 

medical providers, ―signed a number of documents authorizing . . . reduction[s] in 

 

16

 The table at page 37 of the Board‘s Report indicates that respondent owed 

chiropractors $2,400 as to Ms. Proctor, $2,400 as to Mr. Wooten, and $1,000 as to 

Ms. Allen. The record also shows that Ms. Proctor and Mr. Wooten‘s telephone 

numbers were either ―disconnected‖ or the ―wrong number‖ and that Ms. Allen did 

not return telephone calls, and that an investigator working on August 22, 2012, 

was unable to reach these clients (and thus was unable to verify, as the investigator 

did with some other clients, that they had received their checks as of that date). 

There is no clear record basis for the Board‘s statement that respondent 

―received the $7,000 settlement payment for [Ms. Proctor‘s] claim on June 12, 

2012, when the client . . . signed a disbursement sheet‖; no basis for the Board‘s 

statement that respondent ―received a settlement payment of $6,800 [for Mr. 

Wooten‘s claim] on June 19, 2012‖ when Mr. Wooten signed a disbursement 

sheet; and no basis for the Board‘s statement that ―[r]espondent received $16,500 

in settlement funds on July 3, 2012 [for Ms. Allen‘s claim.]‖ 
21

the [provider‘s] bill[s]‖ for these (and some other) clients. Respondent explained 

— in testimony that the Hearing Committee did not discredit — that ―[i]n most 

cases [in which Mr. Tyrone signed off on reductions] we hadn‘t even finished 

negotiating . . . . So no, the settlement check was not in our office‖ (with the result 

that respondent ―couldn‘t pay [herself] either‖).17 If, by the putative out-of-trust 

dates, respondent had not yet received from the insurance companies the total of 

$5,800 owed to the medical providers for services provided to Proctor, Wooten, 

and Allen, that would eliminate the putative out-of-trust amounts of $5,113 and 

$5,210. 

I am satisfied, however, that the record supports an inference that respondent 

received insurance funds in the Proctor and Allen cases prior to the October 2012 

putative out-of-trust dates. The record shows that Mr. Tyrone‘s reductions to the 

bills in these cases merely reinstated reductions to which MSS had earlier agreed 

on behalf of itself or on behalf of Dr. Inder Chawla and Gamma Technology, for 

which MSS did the billing. For that reason, it can reasonably be inferred that the 

 

17

 Respondent further testified, ―[T]here were cases that were not settled, 

that we could not settle, until we had these reductions signed by Mr. Tyrone.‖ 
22

Proctor and Wooten cases were not among the cases that respondent had been 

unable to settle before November 2012. Also, both Proctor and Wooten received 

settlement checks from GEICO, an insurer that respondent testified generally sent 

its checks even before the clients signed their disbursement sheets. Thus, it can 

reasonably be inferred that respondent received the $4,800 owed to providers on 

behalf of Proctor and Wooten prior to October 2012.

The Allen case is also one as to which the November 2012 reduction made 

by Mr. Tyrone reinstated a reduction to which MSS had agreed months earlier. 

However, the disbursement sheet for Ms. Allen shows that her agreed-to settlement 

was conditioned on a reduction of a bill from ―Slade Healthcare Inc.‖ (a reduction 

from $4,470 to $2,200), and the record does not show whether that provider had 

already agreed to the reduction or whether it was still a subject of negotiation at the 

time Allen signed the disbursement sheet on July 3, 2012, or even by the October 

out-of-trust dates. Thus, in my view, the evidence is less than clear and convincing 

that the $1,000 owed to MSS on behalf of Allen had been received by respondent 

before the October out-of-trust dates. For that reason, I do not accept the Board‘s 

finding that the out-of-trust amounts were $5,113 and $5,210. The record supports 
23

a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the out-of-trust amount was 

somewhat lower. 

In the end, I conclude that the record evidence as a whole is clear and 

convincing that respondent‘s escrow account was out of trust on the dates in 

question, and thus that a finding of misappropriation is warranted.18 Because I do 

not take issue with the Board‘s finding that the misappropriation was intentional or 

at least reckless, I concur in the judgment disbarring respondent.

 

18

 It is sometimes difficult to measure what constitutes clear and convincing 

evidence, but I am guided here by the rule that even under the more stringent 

beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard applicable to criminal cases, the prosecution 

―need not negate every possible inference of innocence‖ and ―[t]he evidence need 

not compel a finding of guilt‖ to be sufficient for conviction. Long v. United 

States, 156 A.3d 698, 712 (D.C. 2017) (citation omitted).