Washington Lawyer - November/December 2021 - 45

DISCIPLINARY SUMMARIES
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Disciplinary Actions Taken by the District of
Columbia Court of Appeals
Original Matters
In re Bernard Grimm. Bar No. 378171. June 17,
2021. The D.C. Court of Appeals disbarred Grimm
by consent, effective September 1, 2021.
In re Isaac H. Marks Sr. Bar No. 411706. June 24,
2021. The D.C. Court of Appeals suspended Marks
for one year with reinstatement conditioned on
the completion of nine hours of CLE: six hours on
trust account management and three hours on
legal ethics. While serving as successor trustee
for an inter-vivos revocable trust, Marks failed to
effectively administer its terms. Specifically,
Marks failed to provide an accounting for the
trust, maintain a habitable property, and pay
property taxes. In addition, Marks negligently
misappropriated $1,750 from the trust, failed to
promptly deliver funds when he held two of the
beneficiary's Social Security payments in the
trust account for over three years, dishonestly
accused the guardian ad litem of never
requesting an accounting and refusing to
provide property tax statements, and caused the
unnecessary expenditure of judicial resources of
the court and the Auditor-Master in violation of
Rules 1.1(a), 1.3(a), 1.3(b)(1), 1.3(c), 1.15(a), 1.15(c),
8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
In re John F. Mowery III. Bar No. 1001384. June 17,
2021. The D.C. Court of Appeals disbarred
Mowery by consent.
In re William D. Outman II. Bar No. 9670. July 15,
2021. The D.C. Court of Appeals disbarred
Outman by consent.
In re Anthony M. Rachal III. Bar No. 229047. June
10, 2021. The D.C. Court of Appeals suspended
Rachal for 30 days, stayed in favor of one year of
probation. As a condition of probation, Rachal
must complete six hours of continuing legal
education on professional responsibility,
including a course on representing multiple
clients in civil cases, approved by Disciplinary
Counsel. Three clients retained Rachal to represent
them in a probate matter involving disbursement
of trust assets. Rachal failed to advise
his clients of possible conflicts and possible
adverse consequences of the representation. A
conflict developed. Taking the side of one client
against the other two, Rachal filed a praecipe
with the court in which he accused his two
clients of making misrepresentations to induce
the trustee to disburse trust assets to them, and
he asked the court to order those two clients to
return the money. Rachal intentionally damaged
his clients during the course of the representation
in violation of Rule 1.3(b)(2) and engaged in
a conflict of interest in violation of Rules 1.7(b)(1),
(2), and (3).
In re Jonathan R. Schuman. Bar No. 459087. June
10, 2021. The D.C. Court of Appeals disbarred
Schuman, who committed intentional misappropriation
when he kept and spent refunds he
received from the D.C. Superior Court that
belonged to former clients, engaged in dishonesty
and commingling, failed to promptly notify
and deliver entrusted funds, and did not keep
proper records in violation of Rules 1.15(a), 1.15(c),
and 8.4(c).
In re Timothy Guy Smith. Bar No. 417768. June 24,
2021. The D.C. Court of Appeals disbarred Smith.
While appointed as a co-trustee of a supplemental
needs trust established to hold funds
paid to an individual following a personal injury
settlement, Smith intentionally and recklessly
misappropriated entrusted funds, commingled
entrusted funds with his own funds, and failed to
maintain adequate records of his handling of
entrusted funds, violating Rules 1.15(a) and 8.4(d).
In addition, Smith engaged in conduct that seriously
interfered with the administration of justice
when he paid his legal fees from trust funds
without permission and because his lack of
recordkeeping necessitated a substantial effort
and expenditure of time and resources in an
Auditor-Master proceeding to account for the use
of trust funds.
In re Brent S. Tantillo. Bar No. 489978. June 17,
2021. The D.C. Court of Appeals disbarred Tantillo
by consent.
Reciprocal Matters
In re Sarah R. Barnwell. Bar No. 989148. June 17,
2021. In a reciprocal matter from Maryland, the
D.C. Court of Appeals imposed reciprocal
discipline and suspended Barnwell for 60 days
subject to the conditions imposed by the state
of Maryland, nunc pro tunc to May 4, 2021. In
Maryland, Barnwell admitted violating Maryland
Rules 1.1 (competence), 1.2 (scope of representation),
1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.15
(safekeeping property), 1.16(d) (declining or terminating
representation), and 8.4(d) (conduct
prejudicial to the administration of justice).
In re Barry N. Frank. Bar No. 371252. June 17, 2021.
In a reciprocal matter from New York, the D.C.
Court of Appeals imposed functionally equivalent
reciprocal discipline and disbarred Frank. In
New York, Frank was disbarred for failing to remit
settlement funds to a client and then failing to
satisfy a judgment entered against him.
In re Daniel Francis Izzo. Bar No. 1009906. June
17, 2021. In a reciprocal matter from Virginia, the
D.C. Court of Appeals imposed reciprocal discipline
and suspended Izzo for one year and one
day subject to the conditions imposed in
Virginia, nunc pro tunc to April 15, 2021. Izzo
admitted violating Virginia Rules 1.2 (scope of
representation), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication),
and 8.4(c) (dishonesty).
In re Jonathan Frederick Seamon Love. Bar No.
424085. June 17, 2021. In a reciprocal matter from
Maryland, the D.C. Court of Appeals imposed
reciprocal discipline and suspended Love for 90
days with fitness, nunc pro tunc to May 12, 2021.
Love admitted violating Maryland Rules 1.1 (competence),
1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.5
(fees), 1.15(a) (safekeeping property), and 8.4(d)
(conduct prejudicial to the administration
of justice).
In re Christian Levine Simpson. Bar No. 472847.
June 17, 2021. In a reciprocal matter from the
Circuit Court for the City of Rich mond, Virginia,
the D.C. Court of Appeals imposed reciprocal
discipline and suspended Simpson for 45 days,
nunc pro tunc to May 20, 2021. Simpson
admitted violating Virginia Rules 1.1 (competence),
1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.16
(declining or terminating representation), 8.1(a)
(knowing false statement of material fact in disciplinary
matter), 8.1(b) (failure to disclose fact
necessary to correct a misapprehension in a
disciplinary matter), and 8.4(c) (dishonesty).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2021
* WASHINGTON LAWYER 45
Washington Lawyer - November/December 2021

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Washington Lawyer - November/December 2021
