Opinion ID: 2260682
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: DR 1-102(A)(4)Dishonesty

Text: Lawyers are prohibited by DR [1-]102(A)(4) from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty. Unlike the offense of unintentional or inadvertent misappropriation encompassed by DR 1-103(A), where improper intent is not an element, In re Harrison, 461 A.2d at 1036, a dishonesty offense under DR 1-102(A)(4) requires proof of intent. In this case, the Hearing Committee found that Respondent herein had an honest, though erroneous, belief that the settlement funds he received from the Court Registry could properly be deposited in his operating account. Hrg.Com.Rep. at 11. In In re Harrison, 461 A.2d 1034 (D.C. 1983), the court held that misappropriation resulting from negligence or inadvertence (in keeping up to date with the running balance of a bank account) is not sufficient to establish the intent element of a dishonesty violation. As the Court of Appeals subsequently noted in In re Hines, 482 A.2d 378, 386 n. 2 (D.C.1984): Harrison's conduct did not contravene DR 1-102(A)(4). In this case, the Hearing Committee's finding, that Respondent's misappropriation was not intentional or purposeful, but rather was negligent and inadvertent [5] , is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole and is therefore adopted by the Board. Accordingly, the conclusion is inescapable that Respondent did not commit any act of dishonesty in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4).