Court Opinion

ID: 9880679
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-28 14:03:53.431651+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:57:09.579797
License: Public Domain

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic
and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of
any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go
to press.

             DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

                                  No. 23-BG-0648

                          IN RE PAUL HAAR, RESPONDENT.

         A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
                         (Bar Registration No. 368605)

           On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional
                   Responsibility Ad Hoc Hearing Committee
                  Approving Petition for Negotiated Discipline
              (BDN: 23-ND-003; DDNs: 2017-D005 & 2019-D124)

                          (Decided: September 28, 2023)

      Before EASTERLY and MCLEESE, Associate Judges, and STEADMAN, Senior

Judge.

      PER CURIAM: This decision is non-precedential. Please refer to D.C. Bar R.

XI, § 12.1(d) regarding the appropriate citation of this opinion.

      In this disciplinary matter, the Hearing Committee recommends approval of a

petition for negotiated attorney discipline.      See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(c).

Respondent Paul Haar voluntarily acknowledged that, in connection with

representing Manuel Garza, he charged an illegal (and thus per se unreasonable) fee
                                           2

and seriously interfered with the administration of justice when he repeatedly failed

to respond to Disciplinary Counsel’s inquiries regarding the illegal fee; and further

that, in connection with representing Mariia Chuta, he failed to provide competent

representation, serve the client with commensurate skill and care, adequately consult

with the client, act with reasonable promptness, explain a matter to the client, and

timely return an unearned and unreasonable (overbilled) fee. As a result, respondent

admits that he violated D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1(a)-(b), 1.2(a), 1.3(c), 1.4(b), 1.5(a)

(x2), 1.16(d), 8.1(b), and 8.4(d). The proposed discipline consists of a 180-day

suspension, stayed as to all but 90 days, with reinstatement conditioned on

respondent providing a $5,000 refund to Mr. Garza and a $22,000 refund to Ms.

Chuta. The parties clarified before the Committee that respondent had already fully

refunded Mr. Garza and paid $1,000 to Ms. Chuta, and that the agreed-upon sanction

was, in effect, a 90-day suspension that would continue indefinitely (i.e. no outer

bound at 180 days) until respondent paid the remaining $21,000 to Ms. Chuta.

      Having reviewed the Committee’s recommendation in accordance with our

procedures in uncontested disciplinary cases, see D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(d), we agree

that this case is appropriate for negotiated discipline and that “the agreed-upon

sanction is ‘justified,’” In re Mensah, 262 A.3d 1100, 1104 (D.C. 2021) (per curiam)

(quoting D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(c)(3)), given the sanctions we have previously
                                          3

imposed for similar violations. See, e.g., In re Owusu, 886 A.2d 536 (D.C. 2005);

In re Hallmark, 831 A.2d 366 (D.C. 2003) (per curiam); In re Drew, 693 A.2d 1127

(D.C. 1997) (per curiam); In re Ryan, 670 A.2d 375 (D.C. 1996); see also Mensah,

262 A.3d at 1104 (“[T]he sanctions imposed in negotiated-discipline cases may in

some cases be less stringent than would otherwise have been appropriate in a

contested-discipline case.”). Accordingly, it is

      ORDERED that respondent Paul Haar is hereby suspended from the practice

of law in the District of Columbia for 90 days with reinstatement conditioned on

respondent providing a $21,000 refund to Ms. Chuta. We direct respondent’s

attention to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), which requires the filing of an affidavit, both

with this court and the Board on Professional Responsibility, for purposes of

reinstatement in accordance with D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16, and Board Rule 9. We also

direct respondent’s attention to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(h), which requires him to “keep

and maintain records” so that “proof of compliance with . . . th[is] suspension order

will be available.”

                                                                 So ordered.