In Re Rachal

251 A.3d 1038 (D.C. Ct. App. 2021)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Patrick Ridley and his mother, Madlyn Ridley-Fisher, were the sole beneficiaries of the Virginia P. Ridley Trust. Along with Harold Fisher - who is Ms. Ridley-Fisher's husband and was a creditor of the trust - they retained Rachal (D) to remove Brenda Hopkins as trustee, secure the appointment of a new trustee, and compel the trustee to pay debts owed to Mr. Fisher and distribute trust assets to the beneficiaries. D did not explain potential conflicts of interest to the clients before they entered this agreement or 'seek a waiver of conflicts' from them. D acted on behalf of all three clients by filing a complaint in Superior Court that requested the relief described in the retainer agreement. The court entered a consent order permitting Hopkins to resign, appointing Brian Hopson as the new trustee, and requiring Mr. Hopson to refrain from distributing trust assets without court approval until the parties resolved. Hopkins' counterclaims for unpaid trustee fees and related debts. The court found for Hopkins on all pending matters, although it awarded her less in damages than she initially sought. Mr. Fisher emailed Hopson, with his wife's approval, and requested reimbursement or expenses he had incurred on behalf of the trust. Hopson obliged, paying Mr. Fisher $9,613.34, but later learned that Patrick Ridley objected to the disbursement. D also objected. D demanded that the Fishers' return the funds, asked Hopson to make the same request of them, and threatened to file a 'praecipe' with the court seeking corrective action if the Fishers refused. The Fishers refused and informed D that they did not want him to file the praecipe. D filed it anyway. The court 'denied' Ds filing, correctly noting that 'a 'praecipe' is not an appropriate means for seeking court action.' The Fishers filed a pro se opposition. The Disciplinary Counsel filed charges against D. Disciplinary Counsel failed to establish that D violated Rules 1.3(b)(1) (failure to seek client's objectives) and 8.4(d) (conduct that interferes with the administration of justice), he had proven by clear and convincing evidence that respondent violated Rule 1.3(b)(2), which prohibits intentionally prejudicing a client's interests, and Rules 1.7(b)(1), (2), and (3), all of which concern conflicts of interest. The Board 'concurred.' The Board recommended that D be suspended from the practice of law for three months and required to complete six hours of continuing legal education courses approved by Disciplinary Counsel, including a course on the representation of multiple clients in civil cases.