Washington Lawyer - August/September 2018 - 42

DISCIPLINARY SUMMARIES
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Probate Court, the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel, and the
Hearing Committee. The misconduct arose out of (1) Bynum's
joint representation of a client
and his parents in medical malpractice actions and an estate
action in South Carolina, and (2)
Bynum's representation of that
same client in a life insurance
matter. (For the charges related
to the South Carolina matters, the
South Carolina Rules of
Professional Conduct 1.3
(Diligence and Promptness), 1.4(a)
and (b) (Communication), 1.5(b)
(Scope of Representation and
Rate of Fee), 1.7(a)(2) (Concurrent
Conflict of Interest), and 8.4(d)
(Dishonesty). For the charges
related to the insurance matter,
District of Columbia Rules of
Professional Conduct 1.3(a)
(Diligence), 1.3(b)(1) (Intentionally
Failing to Seek Client's
Objectives), 1.3(c) (Promptness),
1.4(a) (Failing to Keep Client
Reasonably Informed), and 1.4(b)
(Failing to Explain Matter).
In re Alexander Fernandez. Bar
No. 477829. May 4, 2018. The
Board on Professional
Responsibility recommends that
the D.C. Court of Appeals disbar
Fernandez by consent.
In re Gregory L. Lattimer. Bar No.
371926. April 3, 2018. In a consolidated matter made up of two
separate cases, the Board on
Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of
Appeals suspend Lattimer for 60
days, with the requirement that
he pay restitution to one client in

the amount of $4,500, plus statutory interest, and provide to
Disciplinary Counsel proof of
restitution prior to reinstatement.
In the first matter, Lattimer failed
to keep two clients reasonably
informed about the status of a
matter and promptly comply
with reasonable requests for
information, in violation of D.C.
Rule 1.4(a). In the second matter,
Lattimer violated Virginia Rules
pertaining to competence, diligence and zeal, promptness, and
dishonesty. Virginia Rules 1.1,
1.3(a), and 8.4(c).
In re John L. Machado. Bar No.
449961. May 21, 2018. The Board
on Professional Responsibility
recommends that the D.C. Court
of Appeals suspend Machado for
90 days, stayed in favor of two
years of supervised probation,
with conditions. Machado's violations arose out of his failure to file
an appellate brief in a single
criminal matter, despite
numerous orders to do so over a
period of approximately 16
months. Rules 1.1(a), 1.1(b), 1.3(a),
1.3(b)(1), 1.3(c), 3.4(c), and 8.4(d).
In re Brian K. McDaniel. Bar No.
452807. April 5, 2018. The Board
on Professional Responsibility
recommends that the D.C. Court
of Appeals reprimand McDaniel.
While retained to represent a
client in the appeal of a criminal
matter, McDaniel commingled
advanced, unearned fees with his
own funds when he placed
unearned fees paid to him by the
client into his business operating
account where he also held his

own funds and law firm funds,
without his client's informed
consent as required by In re
Mance, 980 A.2d 1196 (D.C. 2009).
Rules 1.15(a) and 1.15(e).
In re Roy L. Pearson Jr. Bar No.
955948. May 23, 2018. The Board
on Professional Responsibility
recommends that the D.C. Court
of Appeals suspend Pearson for
90 days. The disciplinary matter
arose out of Pearson's pro se
lawsuit in D.C. Superior Court
against the owners of a drycleaning establishment, from
whom Pearson eventually sought
more than $67 million in
damages in a dispute that started
when the dry cleaner allegedly
lost his pants. The Board agreed
with the Hearing Committee's
decision and found that Pearson
violated Rule 3.1 (bringing a frivolous proceeding or asserting a
frivolous issue therein) and Rule
8.4(d) (serious interference with
the administration of justice).
In re Wendell C. Robinson. Bar No.
377091. April 4, 2018. The Board
on Professional Responsibility
recommends that the D.C. Court
of Appeals suspend Robinson for
one year. While retained to represent a client in a medical malpractice case, Robinson failed to
hold disputed legal fees in trust
until his dispute with co-counsel
was resolved. Rule 1.15(d).
In re Leslie A. Thompson. Bar No.
473388. May 14, 2018. The Board
on Professional Responsibility
recommends that the D.C. Court
of Appeals suspend Thompson for

30 days with fitness. Thompson
delayed in responding to
Disciplinary Counsel's inquiry
letter regarding a disciplinary
complaint, failed to respond to
a subpoena duces tecum for his
client file and his financial records,
and failed to comply with a court
order compelling him to respond
to Disciplinary Counsel's
subpoena. After the Hearing
Committee issued its report,
the Court of Appeals suspended
Thompson in a second matter
in which he failed to respond to
Disciplinary Counsel. Rule 8.4(d)
and D.C. Bar R. XI, § 2(b)(3).
In re James C. Zinman. Bar No.
182121. May 3, 2018. The Board
on Professional Responsibility
recommends that the D.C. Court
of Appeals disbar Zinman by
consent.
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel
compiled the foregoing summaries
of disciplinary actions. Informal
Admonitions issued by Disciplinary
Counsel and Reports and
Recommendations issued by
the Board on Professional
Responsibility are posted at
www.dcattorneydiscipline.org.
Most board recommendations as
to discipline are not final until
considered by the court. Court
opinions are printed in the Atlantic
Reporter and also are available
online for decisions issued since
August 1998. To obtain a copy
of a recent slip opinion, visit
www.dccourts.gov court-ofappealsopinions-memorandum
-of-judgments.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
42 WASHINGTON LAWYER

*

AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2018

*
http://www.dcattorneydiscipline.org http://www.dccourts.gov http://www.dcbar.org
Washington Lawyer - August/September 2018

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Washington Lawyer - August/September 2018
