Opinion ID: 2349405
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: respondent's objection to the adequacy of the record on misappropriation

Text: In his objections to reciprocal discipline, Respondent argues that the record in the Maryland proceedings contained insufficient proof of any violation sufficient to warrant disbarment, because there has never been a finding of fact that he misappropriated his client's funds for personal gain. This same contention was made in Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration before the Court of Appeals of Maryland: The mishandling of client funds does not warrant disbarment when no intent to steal or defraud is found. Memorandum in Support of Motion for Reconsideration, at p. 3. In terms of Rule XI criteria, Respondent contends that the balance of an affirmative finding of intentional dishonesty or fraud should give rise to the clear conviction that this jurisdiction could not, consistent with its duty, accept as final the conclusion [of the Maryland Court of Appeals] on that subject, and that reciprocal disbarment in the District of Columbia would result in grave injustice. This contention is totally lacking in merit. The basic premise underneath Respondent's contention is that the Maryland Court of Appeals, in ordering disbarment, grossly misapplied the state's disciplinary rules. Respondent's contention borders on the frivolous. It was only two years ago that the Court of Appeals of Maryland undertook once again . . . to make indelibly clear that, ordinarily, the sanction for misappropriation of a client's funds by an attorney is disbarment. Atty. Grievance Comm'n v. Boehm, [293 Md. 476], 446 A.2d 52 (Md.1982). In that proceeding, the accused attorney (Boehm) argued on appeal that disbarment was not justified inasmuch as the trial judge did not conclude that Boehm [had engaged in] . . . conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, or deceit. The Court of Appeals of Maryland found it unnecessary to decide that issue because bank statements established that the balance in the attorney's escrow account, into which the proceeds of a sale of property in an estate had been deposited, fell far below the amount due to the estate. Although the trial judge concluded that Boehm had merely been negligent in handling the estate funds by relying on his bookkeeper to keep his accounts in order, disbarment was nonetheless the appropriate sanction because Boehm's contention that his inexperience and poor accounting practices constitute extenuating circumstances is without merit. . . . Id. [446 A.] at 53-54. [1] This Board concludes that the record in the Maryland proceedings contained clear and convincing evidence that was plainly adequate under the disciplinary rules of Maryland to support the decision of the Court of Appeals finding misappropriation and ordering Respondent's disbarment. The record established unequivocally, even without Respondent's testimony, that for more than a year after receiving the recovery in the Martin case, Respondent failed to keep the funds in escrow as he was ethically obligated to do and otherwise failed to account for the client's funds. Contrary to Respondent's contention, the State of Maryland was not required to prove what happened to the money during the period prior to the date that it was first placed in any escrow account. The District of Columbia also regards any misappropriation or commingling of client's funds with other funds as a breach of the disciplinary rules, regardless of intent. In In the Matter of E. David Harrison, 461 A.2d 1034 (D.C.1983) misappropriation by an attorney was defined as the unauthorized use of clients' funds entrusted to him, including not only stealing but also unauthorized temporary use for the lawyer's own purpose, whether or not he derives any personal gain or benefit therefrom. The Court then said: This definition makes clear that improper intent is not an element to be considered in determining whether there has been a misappropriation. While the District of Columbia does not automatically impose disbarment as the sanction for commingling without intent to misappropriate (as the Harrison case shows), the normal remedy for commingling and misappropriation of funds is disbarment. In re McClellan, M-51-80 (D.C. 1981); In re Burka, 423 A.2d 181 (D.C. 1980); In re Newsome, D-34-79 (D.C.1979). Moreover, where bank records establish unequivocally that a client's funds that should be deposited in an escrow account are not in such an account and where the attorney then fails to provide full and adequate explanation, such evidence constitutes adequate proof of intentional misappropriation sufficient to justify disbarment in the District of Columbia. Compare In re Burton, [472 A.2d 831], Nos. M-143-82; 83-492 (D.C. January 11, 1984). Accordingly, Respondent's contention that the record in the Maryland proceeding did not justify disbarment under Maryland's interpretation of the disciplinary rules is wholly without merit. Similarly, Respondent's further contention that a substantially different discipline would be warranted under the disciplinary rules as administered in this jurisdiction is likewise rejected.