finding reckless disregard where attorney “made no attempt to keep track of his client’s funds, but indiscriminately wrote checks on the account at a time when he knew or should have known that the account was overdrawn”
How later courts described this case
- finding reckless disregard where attorney “made no attempt to keep track of his client’s funds, but indiscriminately wrote checks on the account at a time when he knew or should have known that the account was overdrawn”
- adopting Board’s recommendation of reckless misappropriation; Board accepted undisputed facts found by Hearing Committee, but disagreed with Hearing Committee’s conclusion that conduct was negligent
- "Depositing client funds into an attorney's operating account constitutes commingling” (citation omitted)
- holding that the question of whether a misappropriation was negligent is an ultimate fact
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SCHWELB, Associate Judge,
concurring:
I remain of the opinion that this court’s relentlessly unforgiving approach to misappropriation cases like this one is difficult to reconcile with what I view as substantially greater and sometimes excessive leniency towards violations involving far more dishonorable conduct. See In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190 , 209-10 & nn. 16-20 (D.C.1979) (en banc) (Schwelb, J., concurring). In light of the decision in Addams, however, I am constrained in this case to join the opinion of the court.