In re Frank

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re Frank

881 A.2d 1099, 2005 D.C. App. LEXIS 456, 2005 WL 2087918

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 25, 2005

DocketNo. 05-BG-581

StatusPublished

This text of 881 A.2d 1099 (In re Frank) 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 Frank, 881 A.2d 1099, 2005 D.C. App. LEXIS 456, 2005 WL 2087918 (D.C. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this original disciplinary proceeding, respondent Arthur J. Frank, a member of the District of Columbia Bar, is charged with failing to maintain adequate funds in his client trust accounts in violation of Rule 1.15(a) of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct. The Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”) has recommended to this court that he be suspended from the practice of law for six months.

On April 2, 2004, Bar Counsel filed a specification of charges against respondent alleging that he had misappropriated a portion of settlement funds from a personal injury matter he had handled.¹ A hearing took place before Hearing Committee No. 2, and respondent admitted the misappropriation. On July 30, 2004, the Committee issued its Report and Recommendation. The Committee found that respondent had authorized withdrawals from his firm’s trust accounts which resulted in insufficient funds. A majority of the Committee found that the misappropriation was the result of simple negligence and recommended a six-month suspension.

[1100]*1100The Board concurs and makes the same recommendation. Since no exception has been taken to its Report and Recommendation, we give it heightened deference. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g)(2); In re Delaney, 697 A.2d 1212, 1214 (D.C.1997). Moreover, there is substantial support in the record for the Board’s findings, and we accept them. The recommended sanction is not inconsistent with discipline imposed in similar cases, and we adopt it.² Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Arthur J. Frank be, and hereby is, suspended from the practice of law for six months. We direct respondent’s attention to the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), and their effect on his eligibility for reinstatement. It is

So ordered.

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

PER CURIAM:

In this original disciplinary proceeding, respondent Arthur J. Frank, a member of the District of Columbia Bar, is charged with failing to maintain adequate funds in his client trust accounts in violation of Rule 1.15(a) of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct. The Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”) has recommended to this court that he be suspended from the practice of law for six months.

On April 2, 2004, Bar Counsel filed a specification of charges against respondent alleging that he had misappropriated a portion of settlement funds from a personal injury matter he had handled.¹ A hearing took place before Hearing Committee No. 2, and respondent admitted the misappropriation. On July 30, 2004, the Committee issued its Report and Recommendation. The Committee found that respondent had authorized withdrawals from his firm’s trust accounts which resulted in insufficient funds. A majority of the Committee found that the misappropriation was the result of simple negligence and recommended a six-month suspension.

[1100]*1100The Board concurs and makes the same recommendation. Since no exception has been taken to its Report and Recommendation, we give it heightened deference. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g)(2); In re Delaney, 697 A.2d 1212, 1214 (D.C.1997). Moreover, there is substantial support in the record for the Board’s findings, and we accept them. The recommended sanction is not inconsistent with discipline imposed in similar cases, and we adopt it.² Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Arthur J. Frank be, and hereby is, suspended from the practice of law for six months. We direct respondent’s attention to the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), and their effect on his eligibility for reinstatement. It is

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

881 A.2d 1099, 2005 D.C. App. LEXIS 456, 2005 WL 2087918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-frank-dc-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack