From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Goldberg

District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Dec 24, 1998
721 A.2d 627 (D.C. 1998)

Summary

imposing public censure for comingling

Summary of this case from In re . Mance

Opinion

No. 98-BG-549.

Submitted December 3, 1998.

Decided December 24, 1998.

Before WAGNER, Chief Judge, and TERRY and STEADMAN, Associate Judges.


Respondent James M. Goldberg, who had a management position in his law firm, commingled certain law firm operating funds with funds in the firm's escrow accounts for a brief period in October 1995. By such commingling, Goldberg violated "[o]ne of the most basic rules of fiduciary conduct," embodied in D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15(a) (clients' property must be held separately from lawyer's own property). See In re Hessler, 549 A.2d 700, 700 (D.C. 1988). Goldberg subsequently enrolled himself voluntarily in a D.C. Bar class on Ethics and Lawyers Trust Accounting. Cf. In re Millstein, 667 A.2d 1355, 1356 (D.C. 1995) (per curiam) (imposing an ethics course attendance requirement as part of discipline for commingling).

The Board on Professional Responsibility (Board) recommends that respondent, James M. Goldberg, be publicly censured, a sanction consistent with that imposed in other cases of commingling violations. See, e.g., In re Teitelbaum, 686 A.2d 1037 (D.C. 1996) (per curiam); In re Parsons, 678 A.2d 1022 (D.C. 1996) (per curiam). Neither Bar Counsel nor respondent has filed any exception to this recommendation. "As we have repeatedly said, in such circumstances our review of the Board's recommendation is 'especially deferential.' " In re Delaney, 697 A.2d 1212, 1214 (D.C. 1997) (quoting In re Jeffries, 685 A.2d 1165, 1165 (D.C. 1996) (per curiam)); see also D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g). Accordingly, it is

In In re Hessler, supra, noting the "seemingly simple and specific" nature of the ban against commingling, 549 A.2d at 700, we observed: "We emphasize the ban against commingling to alert the bar that in future cases of even 'simple commingling,' a sanction greater than public censure may well be imposed." Id. at 703. The Board in the case now before us took particular note both of the lack of any actual prejudice or harm to any client as a result of the commingling and of respondent's enrollment in the D.C. Bar class.

ORDERED that respondent James M. Goldberg be and he hereby is publicly censured by the court.


Summaries of

In re Goldberg

District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Dec 24, 1998
721 A.2d 627 (D.C. 1998)

imposing public censure for comingling

Summary of this case from In re . Mance
Case details for

In re Goldberg

Case Details

Full title:In re James M. GOLDBERG, Respondent. A Member of the Bar of the District…

Court:District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Date published: Dec 24, 1998

Citations

721 A.2d 627 (D.C. 1998)

Citing Cases

Sanger Bros v. Barret

" Neal v. Clark, 95 U.S. 704, 24 L.Ed. 586; Hennequin v. Clews, 111 U.S. 676, 4 Sup.Ct. 576, 28 L.Ed. 565. It…

Petition of Katz

Not only is it at least doubtful whether an alien can be said to be sufficiently attached to the principles…