Washington Lawyer - January/February 2025 - 43

DISCIPLINARY SUMMARIES
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In re Brian M. Kurtyka. Bar No. 440410. August
28, 2024. Kurtyka was suspended on an interim
basis based upon discipline imposed in
Maryland.
In re Jibran Muhammad. Bar No. 1024558.
September 18, 2024. Muhammad was suspended
on an interim basis based upon discipline
imposed in Virginia.
In re Joseph Owens. Bar No. 980884. September
18, 2024. Owens was suspended on an interim
basis pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g),
pending final action on the Board on Professional
Responsibility's August 1, 2024, recommendation
of disbarment.
In re Danielle Alexandra Phillips. Bar No.
1673229. August 13, 2024. Phillips was suspended
on an interim basis based upon discipline
imposed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Mexico.
In re Charles A. Queen. Bar No. 421197. August
14, 2024. The D.C. Court of Appeals indefinitely
suspended Queen based on disability pursuant
to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 13(c).
In re William H. Thompson Jr. Bar No. 439132.
August 13, 2024. Thompson was suspended
on an interim basis based upon discipline imposed
in Virginia.
In re Sherri L. Washington. Bar No. 975044.
August 28, 2024. Washington was suspended
on an interim basis based upon discipline imposed
in Georgia.
Informal Admonitions Issued
by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel
In re Claudine E. Harrison. Bar No. 1030903.
July 23, 2024. Disciplinary Counsel issued Harrison
an informal admonition. While serving
as a court-appointed attorney from the Criminal
Justice Act Panel to represent a client in
filing an amended motion for compassionate
release, Harrison failed to provide competent
representation, represent the client with
commensurate skill and care, provide diligent
and zealous representation, and discuss the
matter with the client in violation of Rules
1.1(a), 1.1(b), 1.3(a), 1.3(c), 1.4(a), and 1.4(b).
Disciplinary Actions Taken
by Other Jurisdictions
In accordance with D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 11(c),
the D.C. Court of Appeals has ordered public
notice of the following nonsuspensory and
nonprobationary disciplinary sanctions imposed
on D.C. attorneys by other jurisdictions.
To obtain copies of these decisions, visit www.
dcattorneydiscipline.org and search by individual
names.
In re Abraham F. Carpio. Bar No. 998364. On
May 17, 2023, the Attorney Grievance Commission
of Maryland reprimanded Carpio.
In re Dontrice P. Hamilton. Bar No. 496651. On
June 21, 2023, the Attorney Grievance Commission
of Maryland reprimanded Hamilton.
In re Emeka Igwe. Bar No. 981494. On May 10,
2024, the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania publicly reprimanded
Igwe.
Disciplinary Actions Taken by the Board
on Professional Responsibility Hearing
Committees on Negotiated Discipline
In re William H. Brammer Jr. Bar No. 478206.
September 6, 2024. The Board on Professional
Responsibility's Ad Hoc Hearing Committee
recommended that the D.C. Court of Appeals
accept Brammer's petition for negotiated discipline
and suspend him for 90 days, with all
but 60 days stayed in favor of one year's unsupervised
probation with conditions. Brammer
violated Rules 1.4(a), 1.4(b), 1.5(e), and 8.4(c).
One Hearing Committee member dissented.
Disciplinary Actions Taken by the Board
on Professional Responsibility
Original Matters
In re Joseph Owens. Bar No. 980884. August
1, 2024. The Board on Professional Responsibility
recommended that the D.C. Court of
Appeals disbar Owens for intentionally misappropriating
client funds in violation of Virgina
Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15(b)(3),
failing to communicate with his client in violation
of Virginia Rule 1.4, failing to keep proper
records of client funds or provide an accounting
in violation of Virgina Rule 1.15(b)(5),
and engaging in dishonesty in violation of
Maryland Rule 19-308.4(c). Owens agreed to
represent a client in a security clearance proceeding
for a flat fee of $4,000, which the client
paid in advance, but then withdrew the
full amount of the flat fee from the trust account
without completing the engagement.
Owens also failed to keep the client informed
about the status of the matter, failed to keep
proper records of entrusted client funds, and
did not provide his client with an accounting
of the fees as requested. After the client terminated
the representation, Owens engaged
in dishonesty by misrepresenting the status
of the client's disciplinary complaint to Maryland
courts in a fee dispute with the client.
In re William S. Stancil. Bar No. 370895. September
17, 2024. The Board on Professional Responsibility
recommended that the D.C. Court
of Appeals suspend Stancil for 90 days with
fitness for violations of Rules 1.1(a) and 1.1(b)
(competence, skill, and care), 3.1 (frivolous
claim), and 8.4(d) (serious interference with
the administration of justice) in two unrelated
matters. In the first matter, while retained to
represent a client in a child custody case,
Stancil filed a series of motions that were substantively
meritless and procedurally improper.
Despite the court's order, Stancil advised
the client to deny court-ordered visitation
rights to the opposing party. In the second
matter, Stancil was retained to file suit on behalf
of a client claiming compensatory and
punitive damages for an alleged wrongful
self-help eviction without going through the
D.C. Landlord-Tenant Court, when in fact the
allegation was false and the claim meritless.
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-ofappeals/opinions-memorandum-of-judgments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
JANUARY/FEBRUARY
2025 * WASHINGTON LAWYER 43
http://www.dcattorneydiscipline.org http://www.dcattorneydiscipline.org http://www.dcattorneydiscipline.org http://www.dccourts.gov/court-of-appeals/opinions-memorandum-of-judgments http://www.dccourts.gov/court-of-appeals/opinions-memorandum-of-judgments
Washington Lawyer - January/February 2025

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Washington Lawyer - January/February 2025
