In Re Taylor

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In Re Taylor

511 A.2d 386, 1986 D.C. App. LEXIS 373

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 20, 1986

Docket86-274

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 511 A.2d 386 (In Re Taylor) 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 Taylor, 511 A.2d 386, 1986 D.C. App. LEXIS 373 (D.C. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The Board on Professional Responsibility found that respondent had neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, in violation of Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3), and reprimanded him. The reprimand is final under D.C.Bar R. XI, § 3(5), and is not before this court for review.

What is before the court is the Board’s recommendation that, in addition to the reprimand, respondent be ordered to make restitution to his former client in the amount of $250.00. 1 Under Rule XI, § 3, restitution can be ordered only by the court, not by the Board.

Rule XI, § 7(3) requires us to accept the factual findings of the Board, which are essentially uncontested, and to “adopt the recommended disposition of the Board unless to do so would foster a tendency toward inconsjstent dispositions for comparable conduct or otherwise would be unwarranted.” Respondent offers no persuasive reason why he should not be required to make full restitution of the fee his client paid him, and we can discern none on this record. On the contrary, in a case involving similar facts, we have required an attorney to return the full amount of a fee to a client when the attorney’s neglect caused the client’s case to. be dismissed. In re Roundtree, 467 A.2d 143, 148 (D.C.1983). In this case, as in Roundtree, we believe it is “equitable for [respondent] to make restitution, and not to require [the client] to bear any part of the loss.” Id. (citations omitted).

It is therefore ORDERED that respondent, Durward Taylor, within fourteen days from the date of this order, shall pay to Frances H. Thomas, his former client, the sum of $250.00.

1

. There was some dispute as to the amount of the fee paid by the client, but the hearing committee found that the amount was $250.00. The Board adopted that finding, and respondent has not challenged it before this court. He argues only that because he expended some effort on behalf of his client, he should not be required to refund the full amount.

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

PER CURIAM:

The Board on Professional Responsibility found that respondent had neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, in violation of Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3), and reprimanded him. The reprimand is final under D.C.Bar R. XI, § 3(5), and is not before this court for review.

What is before the court is the Board’s recommendation that, in addition to the reprimand, respondent be ordered to make restitution to his former client in the amount of $250.00. 1 Under Rule XI, § 3, restitution can be ordered only by the court, not by the Board.

Rule XI, § 7(3) requires us to accept the factual findings of the Board, which are essentially uncontested, and to “adopt the recommended disposition of the Board unless to do so would foster a tendency toward inconsjstent dispositions for comparable conduct or otherwise would be unwarranted.” Respondent offers no persuasive reason why he should not be required to make full restitution of the fee his client paid him, and we can discern none on this record. On the contrary, in a case involving similar facts, we have required an attorney to return the full amount of a fee to a client when the attorney’s neglect caused the client’s case to. be dismissed. In re Roundtree, 467 A.2d 143, 148 (D.C.1983). In this case, as in Roundtree, we believe it is “equitable for [respondent] to make restitution, and not to require [the client] to bear any part of the loss.” Id. (citations omitted).

It is therefore ORDERED that respondent, Durward Taylor, within fourteen days from the date of this order, shall pay to Frances H. Thomas, his former client, the sum of $250.00.

1

. There was some dispute as to the amount of the fee paid by the client, but the hearing committee found that the amount was $250.00. The Board adopted that finding, and respondent has not challenged it before this court. He argues only that because he expended some effort on behalf of his client, he should not be required to refund the full amount.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

511 A.2d 386, 1986 D.C. App. LEXIS 373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-taylor-dc-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack