Washington Lawyer - October 2019 - 42

DISCIPLINARY SUMMARIES
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Disciplinary Actions Taken by the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Reciprocal Matters
In re Carolyn M. Crowley. Bar No. 444797. July 25,
2019. In a reciprocal matter from Florida, the D.C.
Court of Appeals imposed functionally equivalent
reciprocal discipline and suspended Crowley for
91 days with fitness, nunc pro tunc to May 29, 2019.
While representing the plaintiff in a civil action,
Crowley intentionally misled the court and
opposing counsel into believing that she had
contacted her client's medical expert but that
he was unavailable to discuss scheduling his
deposition, when in fact she had not.
Interim Suspensions Issued by the District
of Columbia Court of Appeals
In re John J. Good Jr. Bar No. 975476. May 31, 2019.
Good was suspended on an interim basis based
upon discipline imposed in Virginia.
In re Johnnie L. Johnson III. Bar No. 235614. July 2,
2019. Johnson 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 March 25, 2019, recommendation
of disbarment.
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 name.
In re James S. DelSordo. Bar No. 498507.
On October 23, 2012, the Virginia State Bar
Disciplinary Board publicly reprimanded
DelSordo for failing to safeguard entrusted funds
by attempting to withdraw funds from his trust
account prior to receiving the wire transfer
deposit.
Informal Admonitions Issued by the Office
of Disciplinary Counsel
In re Yolanda M. Thompson. Bar No. 1005834.
June 24, 2019. Disciplinary Counsel issued
Thompson an informal admonition. While

retained to represent a client in an employment
matter, Thompson ceased to communicate with
the client. Rules 1.3(c) and 1.4(a).
Disciplinary Actions Taken by the Board
on Professional Responsibility
Original Matters
In re Clarissa Thomas Edwards. Bar No. 434607.
July 25, 2019. The Board on Professional
Responsibility recommended that the D.C. Court
of Appeals suspend Edwards for two years with
fitness. Edwards commingled her funds with
entrusted funds and failed to maintain records of
those funds. In addition, Edwards recklessly made
and failed to correct the misrepresentation concerning her disciplinary history when she failed to
report her 2009 public censure on a D.C. District
Court attorney renewal form. Rules 1.15(a) and
8.4(c) and D.C. Bar R. XI, § 19(f).
In re Evan J. Krame. Bar No. 370772. July 31, 2019.
The Board on Professional Responsibility recommended that the D.C. Court of Appeals disbar
Krame for his negligent misappropriations, deliberate violations of court orders to advance his
own interests at client's expense, and flagrant
dishonesty to the courts and that, as a condition
of reinstatement, Krame be required to make
restitution of $245 to one trust and $615 to a
second trust (the amounts paid by those trusts as
a result of his false time entries), plus interest at
the legal rate, and that he make restitution to a
third trust in the form of the interest due on the
$6,835.38 returned to the third trust on February
26, 2003. The Board concluded that Krame committed two violations of Rule 1.15(a) (negligent
misappropriation), two violations of Rule 3.4(c)
(knowing violation of an obligation to a tribunal),
six violations of Rules 3.3(a)(1) (false statement to a
tribunal) and 8.4(c) (dishonesty), four violations of
Rule 8.4(d) (serious interference with the administration of justice), and two violations of Rule 1.5(a)
(unreasonable fee). Krame served as the courtappointed trustee of Special Needs Trusts. A
Special Needs Trust holds the assets of a disabled
person without jeopardizing his or her receipt of
governmental health and welfare benefits. Each
of the three trusts at issue in this case was funded
by a large civil settlement obtained on behalf of a
severely disabled minor. This matter arose primarily out of Krame's dogged claim to Probate
Division judges that his compensation as trustee

should be set annually as 1 percent of a trust's
assets, and that he not be required to account for
the time he spent acting as trustee. Krame also
sought to charge his trust clients for litigation costs
and the time he spent pursuing his compensation
argument. The Probate Division and the Court of
Appeals uniformly rejected his claims.
In re Jonathan R. Schuman. Bar No. 459087. July
19, 2019. The Board on Professional Responsibility
recommended that the D.C. Court of Appeals
disbar Schuman. Schuman 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 violated
the rule on record keeping. Rules 1.15(a), 1.15(c),
and 8.4(c).
In re Justin Alan Torres. Bar No. 1003136. July 31,
2019. The Board on Professional Responsibility
recommended that the D.C. Court of Appeals
disbar Torres pursuant to D.C. Code § 11-2503(a)
based on his conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude per se. Torres pleaded guilty in
the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County,
Ohio, to multiple felony counts of gross sexual
imposition in violation of Ohio Revised Code
§ 2907.05(A)(4). Four members of the Board dissented and recommended that this case be
referred to a Hearing Committee for a determination of moral turpitude on the facts.
In re William E. Wallace III. Bar No. 298000. July 3,
2019. The Board on Professional Responsibility
recommended that the D.C. Court of Appeals
suspend Wallace for 30 days. While retained to
represent 11 individual victims and one homeowners association in an investment fraud case,
Wallace's failure to respond to questions about
this fee claim after at least five clients had terminated him was unreasonable and in disregard for
his former clients' interests because it affected
their ability to evaluate their risk of changing
counsel. Rule 1.16(d).
In re Jinhee K. Wilde. Bar No. 436659. July 31, 2019.
The Board on Professional Responsibility recommended that the D.C. Court of Appeals disbar
Wilde for violations of Rules 3.3(a)(1), 3.3(a)(4), and
3.4(b) by making repeated false statements and
repeatedly submitting false statements to the
South Korean courts; Rules 8.1(a) and (b) by

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

*

OCTOBER 2019
http://www.dcattorneydiscipline.org
Washington Lawyer - October 2019

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