In Re Mott

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In Re Mott

886 A.2d 535, 2005 D.C. App. LEXIS 543, 2005 WL 2778909

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 27, 2005

Docket05-BG-128

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 886 A.2d 535 (In Re Mott) 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 Mott, 886 A.2d 535, 2005 D.C. App. LEXIS 543, 2005 WL 2778909 (D.C. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Disagreeing with the findings of its Hearing Committee, 1 the Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”) has concluded that respondent, Randy M. Mott, violated rules 1.15(a) and 1.17(a) of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct and D.C. Bar R. XI, § 19(f), by failing to deposit client funds in a designated escrow or trust account, failing to adequately safeguard the funds, and failing to keep appropriate records.

The violations at issue are clear-cut and conceded, and the Board has issued a report and recommendation and supplemental report and recommendation suggesting that we publicly censure Mr. Mott. Neither he nor Bar Counsel has taken any exception to the Board’s report or its supplemental report, thus our deference to its recommendations are heightened. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g)(2); In re Delaney, 697 A.2d 1212, 1214 (D.C.1997). We will adopt the recommended sanction “unless *536 to do so would foster a tendency toward inconsistent dispositions for comparable conduct or would otherwise be unwarranted.” D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g)(1). We find nothing in the record before us to conclude that this sanction is unwarranted or inconsistent. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the respondent Randy M. Mott be and is hereby publicly censured.

So ordered.

1

. Which found that respondent had commingled funds.

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

PER CURIAM:

Disagreeing with the findings of its Hearing Committee, 1 the Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”) has concluded that respondent, Randy M. Mott, violated rules 1.15(a) and 1.17(a) of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct and D.C. Bar R. XI, § 19(f), by failing to deposit client funds in a designated escrow or trust account, failing to adequately safeguard the funds, and failing to keep appropriate records.

The violations at issue are clear-cut and conceded, and the Board has issued a report and recommendation and supplemental report and recommendation suggesting that we publicly censure Mr. Mott. Neither he nor Bar Counsel has taken any exception to the Board’s report or its supplemental report, thus our deference to its recommendations are heightened. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g)(2); In re Delaney, 697 A.2d 1212, 1214 (D.C.1997). We will adopt the recommended sanction “unless *536 to do so would foster a tendency toward inconsistent dispositions for comparable conduct or would otherwise be unwarranted.” D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g)(1). We find nothing in the record before us to conclude that this sanction is unwarranted or inconsistent. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the respondent Randy M. Mott be and is hereby publicly censured.

So ordered.

1

. Which found that respondent had commingled funds.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

886 A.2d 535, 2005 D.C. App. LEXIS 543, 2005 WL 2778909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mott-dc-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack