In re Toan Q. Thai

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re Toan Q. Thai

157 A.3d 760, 2017 WL 1373285, 2017 D.C. App. LEXIS 79

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 13, 2017

Docket16-BG-471

StatusPublished

This text of 157 A.3d 760 (In re Toan Q. Thai) 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 Toan Q. Thai, 157 A.3d 760, 2017 WL 1373285, 2017 D.C. App. LEXIS 79 (D.C. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The Board on Professional Responsibility found that respondent Toan Q. Thai committed numerous violations of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct in connection with his representation of clients in immigration proceedings, by among other things failing to safeguard client funds, engaging in reckless or intentional misappropriation, neglecting clients’ cases, failing to communicate with clients, failing to return unearned fees, engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, failing to respond to Disciplinary Counsel’s inquiries, and committing criminal misconduct reflecting adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness. The Board recommended that Mr. Thai be disbarred and *761 required to pay restitution to certain clients as a condition of his reinstatement.

Pursuant to District of Columbia Bar Rule XI, § 9 (h)(2), “if no exceptions are filed to the Board’s report, the Court will enter an order imposing the discipline recommended by the Board.” Mr. Thai did not file an exception to the Board’s recommendation. Mr. Thai did, however, file a brief response to an order requiring him to show cause why this court should not enter an interim order of suspension pending final action. In that response, Mr. Thai denied certain of the Board’s conclusions but did not present any persuasive basis for rejecting those conclusions. We therefore accept the Board’s recommendation. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Toan Q. Thai is hereby disbarred from the District of Columbia. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of reinstatement, Mr. Thai must pay restitution to his clients in the amounts determined by the Board: $8,000, plus interest at the legal rate, to Heesoek Lee; $4,500, plus interest at the legal rate, to Cuong Bao Tang and Long Dang; and $2,000, plus interest at the legal rate, to Bich Thi Ngoc Huynh. For the purposes of reinstatement, the period of disbarment will begin to run when Mr. Thai has filed an affidavit demonstrating full compliance with District of Columbia Bar Rule XI, § 14 (g).

So ordered.

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 Toan Q. Thai committed numerous violations of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct in connection with his representation of clients in immigration proceedings, by among other things failing to safeguard client funds, engaging in reckless or intentional misappropriation, neglecting clients’ cases, failing to communicate with clients, failing to return unearned fees, engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, failing to respond to Disciplinary Counsel’s inquiries, and committing criminal misconduct reflecting adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness. The Board recommended that Mr. Thai be disbarred and *761 required to pay restitution to certain clients as a condition of his reinstatement.

Pursuant to District of Columbia Bar Rule XI, § 9 (h)(2), “if no exceptions are filed to the Board’s report, the Court will enter an order imposing the discipline recommended by the Board.” Mr. Thai did not file an exception to the Board’s recommendation. Mr. Thai did, however, file a brief response to an order requiring him to show cause why this court should not enter an interim order of suspension pending final action. In that response, Mr. Thai denied certain of the Board’s conclusions but did not present any persuasive basis for rejecting those conclusions. We therefore accept the Board’s recommendation. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Toan Q. Thai is hereby disbarred from the District of Columbia. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of reinstatement, Mr. Thai must pay restitution to his clients in the amounts determined by the Board: $8,000, plus interest at the legal rate, to Heesoek Lee; $4,500, plus interest at the legal rate, to Cuong Bao Tang and Long Dang; and $2,000, plus interest at the legal rate, to Bich Thi Ngoc Huynh. For the purposes of reinstatement, the period of disbarment will begin to run when Mr. Thai has filed an affidavit demonstrating full compliance with District of Columbia Bar Rule XI, § 14 (g).

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 A.3d 760, 2017 WL 1373285, 2017 D.C. App. LEXIS 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-toan-q-thai-dc-2017.