In re Clair

148 A.3d 705, 2016 WL 6543535
CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 3, 2016
DocketNo. 15-BG-889
StatusPublished

This text of 148 A.3d 705 (In re Clair) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Clair, 148 A.3d 705, 2016 WL 6543535 (D.C. 2016).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

On August 3, 2015, the Board on Professional Responsibility (“the Board”) found that Jerome E. Clair, respondent, violated District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3 (a)(1), 3.4 (c), 8.4 (c), and 8.5 (d) in connection with his representation in a personal injury action against the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, as well as Rules 1.15 (a), 1.15 (c), 3.4 (c), 8.4 (b), and 8.4 (c) in connection with his representation in an estate matter. The Board adopted all but one of the Ad Hoc Hearing Committee’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, to which neither Mr. Clair nor Bar Counsel had filed exceptions. Concluding that Mr. Clair had intentionally misappropriated funds from the client in the estate matter, the Board recommended that he should be disbarred, with the requirement to pay restitution with interest, pursuant to In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190 (D.C. 1990) (en banc).

Pursuant to District of Columbia Bar Rule XI, § 9 (h)(2), “if no exceptions are filed to the Board’s report, the Court [of Appeals] will enter an order imposing the discipline recommended by the Board upon the expiration of the time permitted for filing exceptions.” See also, e.g., In re Wemhoff, 142 A.3d 573 (D.C. 2016) (per curiam); In re Fitzgerald, 109 A.3d 619 (D.C. 2014) (per curiam); In re Hudson, 89 A.3d 517 (D.C. 2014) (per curiam). Neither Mr. Clair nor Bar Counsel filed exceptions to the Report and Recommendation of the Board.1

Accordingly, respondent Jerome E. Clair is hereby disbarred from the District of Columbia Bar. For purposes of reinstatement, the disbarment will begin on the date that the respondent files an affidavit demonstrating compliance with District of Columbia Bar Rule XI, § 14 (g). See § 14 (f).

It is further ordered that, as a condition of reinstatement, respondent must pay in restitution the amounts determined by the Board: $51,257.88, plus interest at the legal rate, to the Estate of Mable Mills (or to the Clients’ Security Fund, to the extent that it has paid any monies in these matters); $1,020, plus the legal interest rate, to Matthew Goodman, Esq.; and $500, plus the legal interest rate, to the registry of the Superior Court.

So ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Matter of Addams
579 A.2d 190 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1990)
In re Daryl J. Hudson, III
89 A.3d 517 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2014)
In re Lorenzo C. Fitzgerald, Jr.
109 A.3d 619 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2014)
In re Wemhoff
142 A.3d 573 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
148 A.3d 705, 2016 WL 6543535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-clair-dc-2016.