Washington Lawyer - March 2019 - 40

DISCIPLINARY SUMMARIES
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Disciplinary Actions Taken
by the District of Columbia
Court of Appeals
Original Matters
In re Warner H. Anthony Jr. Bar
No. 412731. December 13, 2018.
The D.C. Court of Appeals suspended Anthony for one year
with fitness. While retained to
represent two clients (a married
couple) before the U.S. Tax Court,
Anthony failed to provide competent representation; did not act
with the necessary commitment
and dedication to the interests of
the client or with the zeal in
advocacy upon the client's
behalf; failed to communicate
the status of the petitions and
failed to explain the matter to an
extent necessary for the clients to
make informed decisions; did not
provide the clients with a written
statement of the rate or basis of
the fee, the scope of the representation, or what expenses
would be their responsibility;
failed to turn over the client file
to successor counsel; and knowingly disobeyed an obligation of
the tribunal on two occasions. In
addition, Anthony failed to
respond to Disciplinary Counsel's
investigation. Finally, Anthony's
failure to inform the clients that
their cases were dismissed in
2013, 2015, or 2016 was dishonest.
Rules 1.4(a), 1.4(b), 1.5(b), 1.16(d),
8.1(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) and ABA
Model Rules 1.1, 1,3, 3.4(c), and
8.4(d).
In re Raleigh Bynum II. Bar No.
503380. December 13, 2018. The
D.C. Court of Appeals disbarred
Bynum for his repeated dishonesty to his clients, the South

Carolina 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, 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 Robert King. Bar No. 922575.
November 8, 2018. The D.C. Court
of Appeals publicly censured
King for failing to obtain a written
retainer agreement and for
engaging in a conflict of interest
without getting informed
consent from the client. Rules
1.5(b) and 1.7.
In re Brandi S. Nave. Bar No.
490964. November 29, 2018. A
panel of the D.C. Court of
Appeals vacated its earlier
opinion issued on March 8, 2018,
and suspended Nave for one
year. The court rejected the
Board on Professional
Responsibility's recommendation

to disbar Nave, concluding that
the finding that she misappropriated funds was not supported by
clear and convincing evidence.
The court accepted the Board's
conclusion that Nave violated
Rule 1.15(a) by failing to place the
funds of a third party in trust,
violated Rule 1.15(c) by failing to
promptly deliver funds that a
third party was entitled to
receive, and violated Rule 1.15(d)
by failing to timely distribute
funds. One judge dissented and
would have disbarred Nave for
misappropriation.
In re Leslie Silverman. Bar No.
448188. November 8, 2018. The
D.C. Court of Appeals dismissed
the matter against Silverman as
moot as she was disbarred by
consent in a separate matter.
In re Jason Mark Sims. Bar No.
985903. November 8, 2018. The
D.C. Court of Appeals disbarred
Sims by consent.
In re Michah Jared Smith. Bar No.
1002861. December 6, 2018. The
D.C. Court of Appeals disbarred
Smith. Smith was convicted in
the state of Delaware of one
count of continuous abuse of a
child and one count of sex abuse
of a child by a person in a
position of trust, crimes involving
moral turpitude per se for which
disbarment is mandatory under
D.C. Code § 11-2503(a) (2001), and
three counts of unlawful sexual
contact in the first degree.
In re Ronald D. Swanson-Cerna.
Bar No. 472205. November 8,
2018. The D.C. Court of Appeals
disbarred Swanson-Cerna by
consent.

In re John T. Szymkowicz. Bar No.
946079. November 8, 2018. The
D.C. Court of Appeals adopted
the Board on Professional
Responsibility's conclusion that
Szymkowicz was not shown by
clear and convincing evidence to
have violated Rule 1.7.
In re John P. Szymkowicz. Bar No.
462146. November 8, 2018. The
D.C. Court of Appeals adopted
the Board on Professional
Responsibility's conclusion that
Szymkowicz was not shown by
clear and convincing evidence to
have violated Rule 1.7.
Reciprocal Matters
In re Michael B. Adelhock. Bar No.
431566. December 20, 2018. In a
reciprocal matter from New
Jersey, the D.C. Court of Appeals
imposed identical reciprocal discipline and suspended Adelhock
for three years with fitness. In
New Jersey, Adelhock was found
to have concealed $263,000 of his
own funds into his attorney trust
account to evade creditors and
tax authorities.
In re John H. Branson. Bar No.
438765. December 20, 2018. In a
reciprocal matter from Maine, the
D.C. Court of Appeals indefinitely
suspended Branson because of a
disability pursuant to D.C. Bar R.
XI, § 13.
In re Wilton K. Elder Jr. Bar No.
352906. December 20, 2018. In a
reciprocal matter from North
Carolina, the D.C. Court of
Appeals imposed identical reciprocal discipline and disbarred
Elder with reinstatement contingent on his satisfying the conditions imposed in North Carolina.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
40 WASHINGTON LAWYER

*

MARCH 2019

*
http://www.dcbar.org/
Washington Lawyer - March 2019

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Washington Lawyer - March 2019
