Opinion ID: 1465973
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Testimony in the Disciplinary Proceedings

Text: 20. Mr. Krame, Bar Counsel's expert in the field of guardianship and conservatorship law, had reviewed the documentary record in this case. . . . He testified that his review revealed nothing to indicate dishonest conduct by Respondent in the sense of his having inflated his bills or stolen money from the Estate, other than withdrawing money without court authorization. He also concluded that Respondent had afforded his ward the appropriate level of care exhibited by attorneys in this area. 21. According to the witness, however, Respondent violated the requirements of Rule 308 and D.C.Code § 21-2063 (which requires a conservator to act as a fiduciary and meet the standard of care applicable to trustees) by paying himself conservator fees without the prior approval of the Probate Court. By such conduct, Mr. Krame said, Respondent did not use the appropriate level of care with regard to payment of his conservator fees and breached fiduciary duties described by the statute. Bar Counsel did not elicit testimony from Mr. Krame as to whether Respondent's conduct also violated D.C.Code § 21-2060. 22. Ms. Johnson, Respondent's only witness, represented Northwest Health Care Center in its dispute with the Thomas Estate, referred to in FF 4. . . . She testified that she had probably had additional professional dealings with Respondent. Based on her own experience and conversations with other Probate Court practitioners, she said that Respondent is well known and well liked in the Court. [He's] considered to be a respected member of the Bar. . . . On cross-examination, she added that, Mr. Bach is considered to be and has always been considered to be a reputable, good attorney. 23. In lieu of testimony, Respondent submitted a written statement, which he adopted under oath as his sworn testimony. It summarized certain basic facts, admitted violations of Probate Rule 308 and § 21-2060, [4] and acknowledged that Respondent violated a trust and did not uphold the honesty, integrity and trustworthiness of our Bar. In this statement, Respondent denied that he intended to do so, but also said that there are no relevant excuses for doing so. In response to a question from the Hearing Committee, Respondent testified that the nursing home's claim was a motivating factor. 24. Following the Hearing Committee's preliminary, non-binding determination that Bar Counsel had established a violation of at least one disciplinary rule, the parties presented evidence on aggravation and mitigation. 25. In aggravation of sanction, Bar Counsel introduced a copy of an informal admonition issued to Respondent on July 17, 2003, for incompetence in a case unrelated to this one, in violation of Rules 1.1(a) and 1.1(b). The allegation was that Respondent failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing an employment discrimination complaint in Superior Court, with the result that the lawsuit was dismissed. 27. In mitigation, Assistant Bar Counsel Bowman advised the Hearing Committee that Respondent has been nothing but cooperative in these proceedings and has saved Bar Counsel and the disciplinary system, a fair amount of aggravation, and I would just point that out to the Committee. 28. Respondent testified on his own behalf in mitigation. He noted that, after Judge Burgess removed him as conservator of the Thomas Estate in February 2005, Respondent remained on the Probate Court's list for appointment as conservator by fulfilling a mandatory Continuing Legal Education requirement. Moreover, since referring this case to Bar Counsel, Judge Burgess has appointed Respondent to two cases, both apparently in 2006, after being reminded by the Register of Wills of the prior removal proceeding. Three other judges have also appointed him to cases. 29. Respondent also listed a variety of civic and community activities and achievements to support mitigation of the sanction in this case. 30. In its Report and Recommendation, dated February 8, 2007, the Hearing Committee issued proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law that Respondent had intentionally misappropriated entrusted funds in violation of Rule 1.15(a) and collected an illegal fee in violation of Rule 1.5.