Opinion ID: 2104496
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: this board's review

Text: We have reviewed each of the standards for our evaluation of the actions taken by the State of Florida under D.C.Bar Rule XI § 11(c) and we find that Respondent should not receive a hearing de novo in our jurisdiction based on the misconduct in that state. The measure of our review is the following: A. The procedure elsewhere was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process. In Florida, Respondent had multiple appeals of the initial determination of the probate court and the disciplinary proceedings. In fact, based upon the pleadings and arguments of Respondent the Supreme Court of Florida modified its April 19, 1990 original opinion on October 30, 1990 (Corrected Opinion) and again on February 14, 1991 (Revised Opinion). The record clearly evidences that Respondent had notice of the charges with ample opportunity to respond and be heard. B. There was such infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct as to give rise to the clear conviction that the Court could not, consistently with its duty, accept as final the conclusion on that subject. We noted above, supra, pp. 5-6, that Respondent raised similar objections before this Board which he put before the Supreme Court of Florida. Each objection was adequately addressed by the Florida state system. Many of Respondent's arguments in relation to the calculations of what he charged the Jones couple and what Respondent should be responsible for in the way of reimbursements caused a revaluation by the Supreme Court of Florida of its opinion. [4] Before the hearing panel and subsequently before the referee in Florida Respondent had the opportunity to testify, make arguments and present evidence. Bar counsel in Florida presented expert testimony to provide that state's system with an appropriate yardstick by which to gauge Respondent's actions. We agree with the Supreme Court of Florida when they said: The significant factors in determining a reasonable fee in this case include the amount involved and the benefit to the client, neither of which is disputed. Particularly important is the amount of time that should have been devoted to accomplish these particular tasks. We find that any prudent lawyer would find the fees in this case were clearly excessive. Revised Opinion. p. 9. C. The imposition of the same discipline by the Court would result in grave injustice. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals previously sustained a public reprimand when an attorney was reciprocally disciplined for charging an illegal fee. In re Hudock, 544 A.2d 707 (D.C.App.1988). There the attorney charged a contingent fee of $5,000 from a $15,000 recovery in Virginia after the Workman's Compensation Board determined the proper fee would be $2,500. Our Court of Appeals has also sustained a thirty day suspension for an attorney who pressed his one-third contingency fee when he was discharged before he could provide substantial assistance to the client. In re Waller, 524 A.2d 748 (D.C.App.1987). But, in another reciprocal discipline case, our jurisdiction has upheld a suspension for six month for an attorney who charged an excessive fee, refused to return the fee after discharge and engaged in misrepresentation. In re Leventhal, S-49-77/R-12-77 (D.C.App.1977). In a more serious case, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals has disbarred an attorney who took money from an estate without court authorization when it was later determined that the checks cashed were higher than the amount of compensation which the court would have approved. In re Newsome, D-34-89 (D.C.App.1979) (en banc). There, unlike here, the Court also found misappropriation. These cases lead this Board to determine that the sanctions levied by the Supreme Court of Florida for the disciplinary violations are within the range of sanctions previously ordered by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and would not impose a grave injustice in view of the cases in our jurisdiction. D. The misconduct established warrants substantially different discipline in the District of Columbia. As we have indicated previously, the discipline ordered by the Supreme Court of Florida is within the range imposed in other cases from the District of Columbia. Yet, we will recommend to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reciprocal discipline which is substantially different from that imposed by Florida. In re Reid, 540 A.2d 754, 758 (D.C.App.1988); D.C.Bar Rule XI § 11(g). E. The misconduct elsewhere does not constitute misconduct in the District of Columbia. The District had in effect an identical DR 2-106 at the time of Respondent's actions. The collection of an excessive fee was barred in the District of Columbia at the identical time Respondent was disciplined in Florida. See, In re Hudock, supra, 544 A.2d at 710. Nevertheless, we have said that we are recommending to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals discipline in our jurisdiction which is substantially different from that imposed in Florida. In re Reid, supra . This Board has determined that the procedures in Florida comported with due process, there was no infirmity in the proof establishing the misconduct and that there are no other reasons for a hearing de novo for Respondent. We are, thus, able to recommend to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals different discipline than that imposed by Florida. Id. at 758. The Supreme Court of Florida ordered Respondent suspended for ninety-one days. We agree that this component of the discipline is an appropriate sanction for the misconduct here. We do not agree with the State of Florida that Respondent should undergo a two-year probationary period. Generally, this Board imposes probation to remedy a practice or health-related problem which this Board feels needs monitoring. We have not seen, in this record, any aspects of Respondent's behavior which seem to call for monitoring. Moreover, we are not inclined to impose payment of the financial aspects of the Florida discipline as a precondition to Respondent's reinstatement after his period of suspension in our jurisdiction. In order to determine if the suspension this Board recommends should be imposed prospectively or as of the May 21, 1990 date set by the opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida, Respondent was asked to advise this Board if he had practiced in the District since his suspension in Florida. In re Goldberg, 460 A.2d 982 (D.C.App.1983). In a document styled: Verified Statement of T. Carlton Richardson Re[:] Intention to Practice Law, filed January 2, 1991 with the Board, we were notified by Respondent that he continued to practice in the District of Columbia and he intended to do so unless the District of Columbia Court of Appeals took action in relation to his license. [5] Therefore, we will recommend that the suspension be imposed prospectively. In sum, we recommend to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals that T. Carlton Richardson be disciplined by being suspended for a period of ninety-one days for a violation of DR 2-106 in the State of Florida effective June 24, 1991, the date of Respondent's suspension by Order from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. See, supra, n. 5. BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY By: Francis D. Carter Francis D. Carter Date: July 26, 1991 All members of the Board concur in the foregoing Report and Recommendation.