Court Opinion

ID: 9397355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-25 14:04:07.592427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:23.537031
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-0349

                      IN RE RICHARD J. TAPPAN, RESPONDENT.

        A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
                        (Bar Registration No. 499813)

           On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional
                   Responsibility Ad Hoc Hearing Committee
                  Approving Petition for Negotiated Discipline
                     (BDN: 22-ND-005; DDN: 2019-D130)

                              (Decided May 25, 2023)

      Before BECKWITH, EASTERLY, and MCLEESE, Associate Judges.

      PER CURIAM: This decision is non-precedential.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 Richard J. Tappan voluntarily acknowledged that, in connection with

his appointment as guardian and conservator in a probate case, he failed to provide

competent representation and to serve the client with commensurate skill and care;
                                          2

failed to represent the client zealously and diligently and to act with reasonable

promptness; charged unreasonable fees in his fee petitions to the probate court; failed

to maintain complete records of entrusted funds; and engaged in conduct involving

at least reckless dishonesty and that seriously interfered with the administration of

justice. As a result, respondent admits that he violated D.C. R. Prof. Conduct

1.1(a)-(b), 1.3(a) & (c), 1.5(a), 1.15(a), and 8.4(c)-(d). The proposed discipline

consists of a one-year suspension, stayed as to all but six months followed by one

year of probation with conditions.

      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

imposed for similar sets of violations in contested cases. See, e.g., In re Bailey, 283

A.3d 1199 (D.C. 2022); In re Marks, 252 A.3d 887 (D.C. 2021) (per curiam); In re

Hargrove, 155 A.3d 375 (D.C. 2017) (per curiam); In re Cole, 967 A.2d 1264 (D.C.

2009); In re Bernstein, 774 A.2d 309 (D.C. 2001). Accordingly, it is
                                         3

      ORDERED that respondent Richard J. Tappan is hereby suspended from the

practice of law in the District of Columbia for one year, stayed as to all but six

months, followed by one year of probation with the following conditions:

      (i)    Respondent must take three hours of preapproved continuing legal

      education courses related to the maintenance of trust accounts, recordkeeping,

      and/or safekeeping client property, and he must certify and provide

      documentary proof that he has met this requirement to Disciplinary Counsel

      within six months from the date of this opinion;

      (ii)   Before resuming the practice of law, respondent must meet with Dan

      Mills, Manager of the Practice Management Advisory Service (PMAS) of the

      District of Columbia Bar, or a PMAS monitor, and execute a waiver allowing

      Mr. Mills or the monitor to communicate directly with Disciplinary Counsel

      regarding respondent’s compliance. Mr. Mills or the assigned monitor will

      conduct a full assessment of respondent’s practices, including but not limited

      to reviewing his financial records, client files, engagement letters, and

      supervision and training of staff. Mr. Mills or the assigned monitor shall take

      steps to ensure that respondent is aware of and has taken steps to comply with

      his obligations, including those under D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(a) such as
                                           4

      maintaining complete records relating to client funds, and that respondent

      complies with all the monitor’s recommendations; and

      (iii)   Respondent must be in full compliance with the PMAS monitor’s

      requirements for a period of twelve consecutive months after the six-month

      suspension. After the monitor determines that respondent has been in full

      compliance for twelve consecutive months, respondent must sign an

      acknowledgment that he has complied with the monitor’s requirements and

      file the signed acknowledgement with Disciplinary Counsel. This must be

      accomplished within one and a half years from the date of this opinion.

      If respondent fails to comply with the above conditions, he will serve the

remaining six months of the one-year suspension.          Additionally, we direct

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

affidavit with this court for purposes of reinstatement in accordance with D.C. Bar

R. XI, § 16, and Board Prof. Resp. R. 9.

                                                               So ordered.