Opinion ID: 1465973
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: iv. recommendation as to sanction

Text: The rules for sanctions in misappropriation cases in this jurisdiction were set out in In re Addams. There, the Court said that, in virtually all cases of misappropriation, disbarment will be the only appropriate action unless it appears that the misconduct resulted from nothing more than simple negligence. Addams, 579 A.2d at 191. This is not a per se rule, however. A lesser sanction may be appropriate in extraordinary circumstances, such as those found in In re Kersey, 520 A.2d 321 (D.C.1987), where an attorney's alcoholism was taken to mitigate an intentional misappropriation he committed during the period of his alcoholism. See Anderson, 778 A.2d at 335. Neither in his brief to the Board nor at oral argument did Respondent assert that this case presents extraordinary circumstances warranting a departure from the rule of presumptive disbarment. Addams sets the extraordinary circumstances bar high, and the facts here fall short. The mitigating factors here are not strong enough to overcome the disbarment presumption, nor do they substantially outweigh the aggregating factors. [5] Most importantly, Respondent's prior disciplinary record is a substantial aggravating factor. In 2003, Respondent received an informal admonition for incompetence in his handling of the Sharma matter. See FF [25]. In Sharma, Respondent failed to comply with the plain meaning of Title VII requiring an administrative complaint to be filed before a lawsuit could be maintained. That violation was troublingly similar to his failure in this case to comply with the plain meaning of another statute and of the rules of the Probate Court, demonstrating a pattern of ignoring the abundantly clear wording of relevant law. The intentional and serious nature of Respondent's misconduct is another substantial aggravating factor. Moreover, this case does not present sufficient mitigating factors to qualify Respondent for exceptional treatment under Addams or to enable the Board to recommend a sanction short of disbarment. To be sure, Bar Counsel has endorsed Respondent's remorse, his acceptance of responsibility for his conduct, and the full cooperation he has given Bar Counsel and the Hearing Committee during these proceedings, see FF 27, and all of these factors may have some weight in mitigation. See, e.g., In re Weiss, 839 A.2d 670, 673-74 (D.C.2003); In re Schneider, 553 A.2d 206, 212 (D.C. 1989). Respondent's reputation and his subsequent appointments by the Probate Division also weigh in his favor. Before the Hearing Committee, Respondent also cited as mitigating factors the relatively short duration of the misappropriation, the absence of harm to Respondent's ward; and Respondent's legitimate entitlement to compensation for the services rendered. Reply to Bar Counsel's Proposed Findings of Fact. These facts certainly make the misappropriation less egregious than it might otherwise have been, but they do not alter its intentional character. Nothing, however, distinguishes this case from others in which the Court has found similar mitigating factors to be insufficient. See, e.g., In re Berkowitz, 801 A.2d 51, 57 (D.C.2002) (per curiam) (respondent's return of misappropriated funds, though a mitigating factor, does not qualify as special circumstances for a departure from disbarment under the Addams rule); In re Berryman, 764 A.2d at 773 (absence of a prior disciplinary record. . . even when coupled with other mitigating factors, is not a sufficient [ sic ] to overcome the presumption of disbarment); In re Pierson, 690 A.2d at 949-50 (absence of prior disciplinary record, history of pro bono work, and forthrightness with Hearing Committee and Board do not warrant departure from the Addams rule); In re Clarke, 684 A.2d 1276, 1281 (D.C. 1996) (per curiam) (respondent's lack of prior disciplinary history, his financial distress, and his cooperation with Bar Counsel do not qualify as mitigating factors sufficient to justify departure from the sanction of disbarment.). See also In re Robinson, 583 A.2d 691, 692 (D.C.1990) (respondent disbarred for misappropriation despite relatively small sum involved, quick restoration of funds, lack of financial harm to client, single instance of misappropriation, respondent's relative inexperience, absence of prior disciplinary record, and favorable character testimony). Consequently, the Board does not find on this record any extraordinary circumstances that would justify excepting Respondent from the Addams rule of presumptive disbarment for misappropriation resulting from more than simple negligence. Accordingly, we are required to recommend that Respondent be disbarred.