In re Withers

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re Withers

769 A.2d 784, 2001 D.C. App. LEXIS 78, 2001 WL 278597

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 22, 2001

DocketNo. 00-BG-952

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 769 A.2d 784 (In re Withers) 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 Withers, 769 A.2d 784, 2001 D.C. App. LEXIS 78, 2001 WL 278597 (D.C. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”), in accord with the Hearing Committee, has found that respondent, Wanda R. Withers, violated Rule 1.15(a) of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct by commingling client and personal funds in her trust account, misappropriating trust funds, and failing to keep accurate and complete records of the trust account. Essentially, respondent used her client trust account as a personal and professional operating account in addition to its appropriate fiduciary use. The Board recommends disbarment.

This court will accept the Board’s findings as long as they are supported by substantial evidence in the record. D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g)(1). Moreover, we will impose the sanction recommended by the Board “unless to do so would foster a tendency toward inconsistent dispositions for comparable conduct or would otherwise be unwarranted.” Id. Neither Bar Counsel nor respondent has filed exceptions, so we give heightened deference to the Board’s report and recommendation. D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g)(2); In re Delaney, 697 A.2d 1212, 1214 (D.C.1997). The Hearing Committee and the Board both determined that respondent’s misappropriation was at least reckless. In In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190 (D.C.1990) (en banc), we held that “in virtually all cases of misappropriation, disbarment will be the only appropriate sanction unless it appears that the misconduct resulted from nothing more than simple negligence.” Id. at 191. We see no reason to disagree with the Board’s conclusion that it is the appropriate sanction in this case. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Wanda R. Withers is disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia, effective thirty days from the date of this opinion. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(f). We direct respondent’s attention to the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) and their effect on her eligibility for reinstatement. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16(c).

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 (“Board”), in accord with the Hearing Committee, has found that respondent, Wanda R. Withers, violated Rule 1.15(a) of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct by commingling client and personal funds in her trust account, misappropriating trust funds, and failing to keep accurate and complete records of the trust account. Essentially, respondent used her client trust account as a personal and professional operating account in addition to its appropriate fiduciary use. The Board recommends disbarment.

This court will accept the Board’s findings as long as they are supported by substantial evidence in the record. D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g)(1). Moreover, we will impose the sanction recommended by the Board “unless to do so would foster a tendency toward inconsistent dispositions for comparable conduct or would otherwise be unwarranted.” Id. Neither Bar Counsel nor respondent has filed exceptions, so we give heightened deference to the Board’s report and recommendation. D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g)(2); In re Delaney, 697 A.2d 1212, 1214 (D.C.1997). The Hearing Committee and the Board both determined that respondent’s misappropriation was at least reckless. In In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190 (D.C.1990) (en banc), we held that “in virtually all cases of misappropriation, disbarment will be the only appropriate sanction unless it appears that the misconduct resulted from nothing more than simple negligence.” Id. at 191. We see no reason to disagree with the Board’s conclusion that it is the appropriate sanction in this case. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Wanda R. Withers is disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia, effective thirty days from the date of this opinion. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(f). We direct respondent’s attention to the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) and their effect on her eligibility for reinstatement. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16(c).

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

769 A.2d 784, 2001 D.C. App. LEXIS 78, 2001 WL 278597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-withers-dc-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack