# In Re Smith

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · February 27, 2003 · 817 A.2d 196

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9692004

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re Hendrith v. SMITH, Respondent. a Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** February 27, 2003
- **Citations:** 817 A.2d 196; 2003 D.C. App. LEXIS 87; 2003 WL 548898
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Schwelb
- **Judges:** Schwelb, Washington, Ferren
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9692004

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9692004. Public record. Not legal advice.