For example, seven of the ten case evaluations included in DCX 13 contained similar language in the “Actual Innocence” section which summarized the actual innocence standard set forth in a trio of U.S. Instead, the “case evaluation” was an ambiguous, generalized, one-size-fits-all form that did not specifically analyze or describe the client’s legal options. However, the “case evaluation” was not client-specific and did not analyze the client’s procedural and/or substantive legal issues, or accurately or competently assess the client’s legal matter. A client who paid the fee for the “case evaluation,” received a written document purporting to evaluate the client’s legal options. One of the methods employed by Petitioner was to offer potential clients a “case evaluation” that would include an investigation of the client’s case for a fee between $500 and $700.
All of these entities, with Petitioner’s knowledge and participation, distributed false and/or misleading advertising to incarcerated potential clients regarding the legal services Petitioner and/or the organization would provide. Petitioner held himself out as associated with all of these entities and as the General Counsel for CCLU. At some point during 20, Respondent and his firm had relationships with the Christian Civil Liberties Union (“CCLU”), Corrections and Prison Reform International, and Justice4All. The majority – but far from all – of the misconduct complaints arose in connection with Petitioner’s and his law firm’s representation of clients who were incarcerated as a result of criminal convictions and who wished to pursue potential post-conviction remedies. To date, Petitioner has made restitution of $300. Bar Clients’ Security Fund paid out over $650,000 to clients harmed by Petitioner’s misconduct. Petitioner consented to disbarment while facing more than one hundred complaints of misconduct involving allegations of multiple Rule violations – including the violation of the most serious rules prohibiting fraud, dishonesty, misappropriation, commingling funds, rampant neglect, and a pattern of aggressive marketing to, and taking money from, vulnerable incarcerated clients without providing meaningful services. A District of Columbia Hearing Committee has recommended that reinstatement be denied to an attorney who had consented to disbarment in 2009.
0 kommentar(er)
