Opinion ID: 2166592
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: violations of the code

Text: The Hearing Committee had a two-pronged basis for their conclusion that Respondent had violated Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(5) charging that she engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. They found she had failed to cooperate with the Auditor-Master and failed to respond to the legitimate written inquiries of Bar Counsel. The first basis is not, in our view, supported by substantial evidence; the second is admitted by Respondent in her testimony. (Tr. 50). Respondent testified that she had never received the Notice from the Court for the Summary Hearing on July 1, 1982, on her potential removal as Conservator. (Tr. 48). Further, she gave the Hearing Committee information that she moved her office address from 6402 Georgia Avenue, N.W., to 6400 Georgia Avenue, N.W., to 5910½ Georgia Avenue, N.W., and finally to 2700 Georgia Avenue, N.W. (Tr. 38-39). There were no specific dates asked or given for these office moves in the testimony before the Hearing Committee. Following her removal by the Court, the Auditor-Master was authorized by Court Order to complete the accounting that Respondent had failed to perform. In this process at least one meeting of counsel was set in September 1982. Respondent arrived late for this meeting (Tr. 39) and the Hearing Committee concluded that, in effect, she did not appear at all. H.Comm. Rpt. p. 7. It is apparent, however, from the testimony of John W. Follin, the Auditor-Master, that Respondent did appear at his office on this occasion, albeit late, and produced some of the documents he required. (Tr. 21). Therefore, failure of Respondent to cooperate with the Auditor-Master during the development of the accounting is not supported by the record. The Auditor-Master when acting under Orders from the Court stands as a judicial representative with the legal powers of the Superior Court. In re Washington, 489 A.2d 452, 460 (D.C.1985). As such, its requirements should not be taken lightly by the Bar. The removal of Respondent as Conservator also did not relieve her of the obligation of responding to the requests of the Auditor-Master. Although the failure of any member of the Bar to comply with requests or orders of the Auditor-Master is fully covered by Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(5), the alleged violation in this case is not supported by substantial evidence. Respondent has been far from the model of cooperation, but evidence does show she turned over to the Successor Conservator the material she possessed (Tr. 32) and did provide the Auditor-Master with what documentation she could locate (Tr. 39). There is, on the other hand, a long line of cases which unequivocally holds that the failure of a member of our Bar to respond to Bar Counsel's legitimate written inquiries is a violation of Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(5). In re Haupt, 444 A.2d 317 (D.C.1982); In re Lieber, 442 A.2d 153 (D.C.1982); In re Whitlock, 441 A.2d 989 (D.C.1982); In re Russell, 424 A.2d 1087 (D.C.1980); In re Willcher, 404 A.2d 185 (D.C.1979). Respondent, as we said, has admitted that she knew about the charges in January 1985 (Tr. 50) and did not respond to Bar Counsel's correspondence. (Tr. 47). With respect to the violation of Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3) charging neglect of a legal matter, there is no question that Respondent did not file the required reports (Tr. 47). Rule 305(a) and (e) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. The development of and filing of the accountings was required of Respondent in the course of her duties, and thus she failed to carry out one of her core fiduciary functions. In re Banks, 461 A.2d 1038, 1039-1040 (D.C.1983). Rules 301, et seq., of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia Rules of Civil Procedure require the maintenance of records by a court-appointed fiduciary. Every expenditure must be substantiated. The disallowed checks here were mostly made out to cash, alleged by Respondent to be for reimbursement to the housekeeper. Some of the checks were to compensate a gentleman who cleaned the grounds of the house. Finally there was a check written allegedly for the purchase of a television. In her testimony before the Hearing Committee, Respondent admitted that she could not present the proper documentation for these disputed disbursements, as required by her fiduciary position (Tr. 44). She offered that some of the documents might have been lost in the several moves of her office. She went on to suggest that she would submit this information to the Court and the Auditor-Master when located (Tr. 44-45). She had not done so as of the hearing date. Respondent has not, when required, accounted for the funds with which she was entrusted. In re Burka, 423 A.2d 181, 182-83 (D.C.1980). Respondent has violated Disciplinary Rule 9-103(B)(3). We cannot, however, sustain the finding of the Hearing Committee that Respondent violated Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(4); there is not substantial evidence to support an allegation that she engaged in conduct involving dishonesty. The bulk of the money judgment issued against Respondent by the Superior Court was for disallowed expenditures. While this amount consisted primarily of checks made out to cash, there is no finding of misappropriation by the Auditor-Master (Tr. 25-26). The Hearing Committee also found that Respondent was attentive to the needs of Mrs. Chatham. Bar Counsel presented no evidence that the funds obtained from the checks made out to cash were not applied to Mrs. Chatham's use. See H.Comm.Rpt. p. 11. Instead, the Hearing Committee has determined that because Respondent cannot affirmatively show what has been done with the funds, she must be subject to a finding of dishonesty. H.Comm.Rpt. p. 11. We cannot agree. The burden of proving the charges rests with Bar Counsel. In re Thorup, 432 A.2d 1221 (D.C.1981); In re Williams, 464 A.2d 115 (D.C.1983). The Hearing Committee relies upon In re Grant, 89 Ill.2d 247, 60 Ill.Dec. 462, 465-66, 433 N.E.2d 259, 262-63 (1982), for the proposition that a technical conversion due to sloppy bookkeeping substantiates this violation. However, there is no showing that Respondent converted the funds from the checks to her own use. The Hearing Committee also relies upon In re Minninberg, 485 A.2d 149, 150-51 (D.C.1984). This reliance again presents problems in the present factual context. In the Minninberg case the respondent used or converted collateral money, previously assigned, for his own use. The situation before the Board is inapposite. While we agree that Respondent had a legal and ethical duty to account for every penny belonging to Mrs. Chatham, Respondent cannot, under these facts, be found to have violated DR 1-102(A)(4) without something more than a bare showing that she failed to submit adequate documentation to support the expenditures.