rejecting Hearing Committee’s finding of negligent misappropriation, and adopting the Board’s finding of reckless misappropriation, where attorney’s repeated misappropriations were “so persistent . . . that his misappropriation was reckless, not merely negligent”
How later courts described this case
- rejecting Hearing Committee’s finding of negligent misappropriation, and adopting the Board’s finding of reckless misappropriation, where attorney’s repeated misappropriations were “so persistent . . . that his misappropriation was reckless, not merely negligent”
- recognizing the importance of independently analyzing potential misappropriation and commingling because they are separate violations, even though “the charge presents a compound violation”
- finding eleven- month delay with no excuse violated Rule 1.15(c)’s prompt payment requirement
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SCHWELB, Associate Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the judgment and join Judge Ferren’s carefully documented opinion. I *204 note only, as I did in my separate opinion in In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190, 203-10 (D.C.1990) (en banc), that lawyers who have not misappropriated client funds, but who have nevertheless acted far more dishonorably than respondent Smith did, have received substantially more lenient discipline.