Source: http://www.dcbar.org/bar-resources/publications/washington-lawyer/articles/april-2006-bar-counsel.cfm
Timestamp: 2016-06-25 19:40:26
Document Index: 6501311

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1341', '§ 1343', '§ 11', '§ 9', '§ 3', '§ 11', '§ 1343', '§ 1956', '§ 11']

Bar Counsel: 2005: The Year That Was Facebook
Home / Bar Resources / Washington Lawyer / Bar Counsel: 2005: The Year That Was
From Washington Lawyer, April 2006 By Gene Shipp
Let’s step away from our substantive articles for one column and look at the 2005 disciplinary year. Because 36.2 percent of your bar dues—or $62.67 per member out of the $173 dues paid by active members—goes to support the disciplinary system, an update would appear to be in order.
The Office of Bar Counsel tracks the type of law an attorney was practicing when we decided to investigate the attorney’s conduct. Table 1 shows the field of practice data on cases constituting more than 5 percent of our intake during 2005.
Table 1. Type of Law Practiced by Attorneys Investigated in 2005
In re Frederic D. Leffler. Bar No. 388671. December 23, 2005. The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals disbar Leffler. Leffler was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland of six counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2 and 11 counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2, crimes involving moral turpitude per se, for which disbarment is mandatory under D.C. Code § 11-2503(a) (2001).
In re Thomas P. Liniak. Bar No. 411968. December 8, 2005. The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals disbar Liniak by consent, nunc pro tunc to August 8, 2005.
In re Patrick J. Smith. Bar No. 296822. December 23, 2005. The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals disbar Smith. Smith was found guilty in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, of intimidating a witness in violation of Maryland Criminal Code § 9-305 and impersonating a police officer in violation of Maryland Public Safety Code § 3-502(b). The board concluded that Smith’s conviction for intimidating a witness through threats, force, or corrupt means involved moral turpitude per se, for which disbarment is mandatory under D.C. Code § 11-2503(a) (2001).
In re Edward L. Tezak. Bar No. 429121. December 23, 2005. The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals disbar Tezak. Tezak was convicted in the United States Court for the Western District of Washington of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2 and money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B). The board concluded that Tezak’s conviction for wire fraud involved moral turpitude per se, for which disbarment is mandatory under D.C. Code § 11-2503(a) (2001).
In re David A. Jones. Bar No. 223933. December 28, 2005. In a reciprocal matter from Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose identical reciprocal discipline and disbar Jones, nunc pro tunc to November 8, 1999. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania disbarred Jones for ethical misconduct over six years in three separate charges regarding his defense or prosecution of civil actions on his own behalf or on behalf of his wife. Jones made nonmeritorious claims and contentions, knowingly made false statements to a tribunal, and engaged in dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, Massachusetts, disbarred Jones on the basis of his Pennsylvania discipline.
In re Mark D. Mestel. Bar No. 928200. December 23, 2005. In a reciprocal matter from Washington State, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose functionally identical reciprocal discipline and issue Mestel a board reprimand. The Disciplinary Board of the Washington State Bar Association issued a disciplinary order reprimanding Mestel, by stipulation, for jointly representing two clients with regard to the same matter “without consulting them about the implications and risks of the multiple representation, and by failing to obtain written conflict waivers.”
In re Sang K. Park. Bar No. 416551. December 28, 2005. In two consolidated reciprocal matters from Virginia, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals suspend Park for six months, nunc pro tunc to December 9, 2004. In the first matter, Park was retained to represent a client in an immigration proceeding and was found by the Virginia State Disciplinary Board to have engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that reflects adversely on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law; held himself out publicly as, or implied that he was, a recognized or certified specialist (outside of the exception to the rule); and failed to attend promptly to matters undertaken for a client until completed. In the second matter, Park was retained for the preparation, execution, and subsequent probate of a will and the preparation of a visa application. The Virginia board found that he engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and that he failed to act with competence and to demonstrate the specific legal knowledge, skill efficiency, and thoroughness in preparation employed in acceptable practice by lawyers undertaking similar matters. Three members of the board concurred with the opinion of the majority concerning the sanction, but dissented with regard to the nunc pro tunc treatment.
In re Carl E. Zentz. Bar No. 196568. December 14, 2005. On the basis of discipline imposed by the Maryland Court of Appeals and the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose functionally identical discipline and publicly censure Zentz. The Maryland Court of Appeals reprimanded Zentz by consent for his violation of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct pertaining to competence, scope of representation, meritorious claims and contentions, candor toward tribunals, knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, unauthorized practice of law, inducing or assisting another to violate the rules of professional conduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The Maryland District Court reprimanded Zentz for the same conduct and barred him from practice in any bankruptcy court of the United States.
In re Steven M. Angel. Bar No. 405417. December 22, 2005. In a consolidated reciprocal matter from Oklahoma, the D.C. Court of Appeals publicly censured Angel in one matter and suspended him for five years with fitness in another matter. The Oklahoma Supreme Court publicly reprimanded Angel in the first matter. Thereafter, faced with 13 additional grievances under investigation in Oklahoma, and claiming mental distress caused by family illness, Angel tendered his resignation from the practice of law in Oklahoma. The Oklahoma court approved Angel’s resignation and directed him to reimburse the Client Security Fund for any money disbursed because of his conduct, struck his name from the roll of attorneys, and prohibited him from applying for reinstatement for five years.
In re Timothy Brown. Bar No. 366743. January 19, 2006. In a reciprocal matter from Maryland, the D.C. Court of Appeals imposed nonidentical reciprocal discipline and suspended Brown for 30 days, nunc pro tunc to March 16, 1994, with reinstatement conditioned upon his compliance with the restitution requirement imposed in Maryland. The Maryland Court of Appeals indefinitely suspended Brown, with conditions for reinstatement, on the basis of a joint petition. In that petition Brown effectively admitted that he charged his client an excessive fee; failed to respond to attempts to contact him; failed to return an unearned fee; failed to put a retainer in a separate account; and failed to respond to the Attorney Grievance Commission’s inquiries regarding his client’s complaint. This reciprocal matter, which had been dismissed without prejudice in 1994 after the court imposed an indefinite suspension upon Brown “on account of disability, that disability having resulted from the respondent’s long-term abuse of alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine,” was reactivated after Brown was conditionally reinstated to the practice of law in the District of Columbia on March 25, 2004.
In re Douglas F. Gansler. Bar No. 425465. December 15, 2005. In a reciprocal matter from Maryland, the D.C. Court of Appeals imposed functionally identical reciprocal discipline and publicly censured Gansler. The Court of Appeals of Maryland publicly reprimanded Gansler for making improper out-of-court statements to the press in his capacity as state’s attorney for Montgomery County, Maryland, regarding three criminal prosecutions.
In re John L. Gizzarelli. Bar No. 183194. December 8, 2005. In a reciprocal matter from Massachusetts, the D.C. Court of Appeals imposed functionally identical reciprocal discipline and suspended Gizzarelli for five years with fitness. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts indefinitely suspended Gizzarelli. Gizzarelli, while retained to enforce an agreement for the purchase of real estate, failed to take enough action in his client’s matter, resulting in the dismissal of the case; to inform his client of the case standing or the fact that he had ceased to practice law; to deposit his client’s retainer in a segregated trust account; to refund the unearned portion of the client’s retainer; and to cooperate with the Massachusetts bar authorities.
In re Richard L. Gruber. Bar No. 314765. December 22, 2005. In a consolidated reciprocal matter from New Jersey, the D.C. Court of Appeals imposed identical reciprocal discipline and disbarred Gruber. In one matter, the Supreme Court of New Jersey disbarred Gruber for multiple violations of the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct, including dishonesty and misappropriation of a client’s funds for his personal use. In a second matter, the New Jersey court reprimanded Gruber for misconduct, including gross neglect, lack of diligence, failure to communicate, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities.
In re James R. Marlen. Bar No. 458330. December 30, 2005. In a reciprocal matter from Texas, the D.C. Court of Appeals suspended Marlen for two years, stayed in favor of two years’ probation subject to the conditions set forth in the Texas Grievance Committee judgment. The Texas disciplinary authority found that Marlen, who had been retained to prosecute a securities fraud claim, violated Texas Rules of Disciplinary Conduct pertaining to competent and diligent representation, communication with client, safekeeping property, and failure to respond.
In re Agostinho D. Reis. Bar No. 304436. December 15, 2005. In a reciprocal matter from New York, the D.C. Court of Appeals imposed identical reciprocal discipline and disbarred Reis. The Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, First Judicial Department, disbarred Reis for his failure to respond to the disciplinary committee or the court or to seek reinstatement within six months from the date of the order of suspension. The New York disciplinary authorities charged Reis with misconduct over a three-year period involving his representation of clients despite certifying that he was retired from the practice of law, misappropriation of client funds, acceptance of fees for work he did not perform, and abandonment of clients.
In re Keith J. Smith. Bar No. 415529. December 28, 2005. Bar Counsel issued Smith an informal admonition for failing to provide a writing setting forth the rate or basis of his fee, while representing his client in a probate matter. Rule 1.5(b).