Opinion ID: 1929991
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: DR 9-103(B)(4) Failure Promptly to Pay

Text: DR 9-103(B)(4) requires that a lawyer promptly pay or deliver to a client as requested ... the funds ... in possession of the lawyer which the client is entitled to receive. The Committee found that Respondent, by failing to turn over files, accounts, account records, personal property and stock certificates violated this provision of the Code, and the Board agrees. The language of DR 9-103(B)(4) is clear. In the instant case Respondent failed to respond to requests made by the successor conservator and the Court. The successor conservator testified that soon after being appointed, he attempted by mail and telephone to contact Respondent to obtain the necessary files, and obtain access to the accounts where the Ward's funds were located. Respondent never replied. In addition, the Auditor-Master attempted to enlist her cooperation so that the accounts could be put under proper control for distribution. Respondent ignored those communications as well. Subpoenas issued by Bar Counsel for the purpose of this investigation to gain control of these funds and property were also ignored. Clearly, Respondent's behavior constitutes a failure to promptly pay. The only issue is whether a violation of DR 9-103(B)(4) can occur when the person requesting the funds is not actually the client. DR 9-103(B)(4) requires a lawyer to promptly pay or deliver to a client as requested by a client.... In the instant case, it was not the Ward (who was the client) who requested that funds be turned over to her but the successor conservator and the Court. In a prior adjudication regarding Respondent, the Court of Appeals adopted the Board's position that the rule applies equally to a failure to deliver property to a client's duly authorized representative. In re Delate, 579 A.2d 1177, 1179 (D.C.1990). The situation here is identical. We therefore find that Respondent's conduct in failing to turn over funds and property to the successor conservator and the Court was a violation of DR 9-103(B)(4).