In re Harris ( 2021 )

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the
Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound
volumes go to press.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
No. 21-BG-316
IN RE DONALD R. HARRIS, RESPONDENT.
A Suspended Member of the Bar
of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
(Bar Registration No. 485340)
On Report and Recommendation
of the Board on Professional Responsibility
(BDN 04-19)
(Decided August 26, 2021)
Before THOMPSON and MCLEESE, Associate Judges, and NEBEKER, Senior
Judge.
PER CURIAM: A Hearing Committee issued a Report and Recommendation
finding that respondent failed to explain a matter to his clients; intentionally
misappropriated his clients’ advanced fees; failed to maintain proper records; and
knowingly made a false statement of fact during the disciplinary investigation.
Specifically, the Hearing Committee found the following. Respondent was
retained to assist his clients with the return of five of their children, who had been
2
removed by the State of Ohio. Respondent told his clients that he would try to force
child services to give them back their children, but he failed to inform his clients that
his practice was limited to federal law, that removal of their children was a state-law
matter, that he was not barred to practice law in Ohio, and that he had never handled
any kind of child-custody case.
Respondent’s clients initially could not pay the $2,500 advance fee that
respondent demanded. Eventually, however, respondent’s clients were able to retain
respondent, paying him by a credit-card transfer to PayPal. Respondent began
spending the funds in the PayPal account for his personal use, instead of placing
them in a trust account, which he knew he should have done. Later, respondent
transferred the remaining funds to his firm’s operating account and, before earning
the funds, spent them on business expenses.
Before the Hearing Committee, respondent stated that, because he could only
practice in federal court, he intended to file a federal discrimination case. The
Hearing Committee concluded, however, that filing such a case would not have been
likely to result in the return of the children, because that was a state matter, not a
federal matter.
3
The Hearing Committee also found that (1) respondent failed to keep proper
records during his representation; (2) respondent falsely claimed that he had sent
invoices to his clients before the termination of his representation; and (3) two
purported invoices respondent provided as part of the disciplinary proceedings had
been created after the representation ended.
In considering respondent’s mitigation defense based on medical issues, the
Hearing Committee determined that respondent had failed to meet his burden of
proof under In re Kersey, 520 A.2d 321 (D.C. 1987). The Hearing Committee
recommended that respondent be disbarred.
The Board of Professional Responsibility adopted the Hearing Committee’s
misconduct findings and made two more of its own: that respondent (1) charged an
unreasonable fee; and (2) engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit,
and misrepresentation. The Board agreed with the Hearing Committee that
respondent had failed to establish mitigation under Kersey. The Board also agreed
with the Hearing Committee that respondent should be disbarred for intentional
misappropriation of entrusted funds. See, e.g., In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190, 191
(D.C. 1990) (en banc) (disbarment is presumptive discipline for intentional
4
misappropriation). The Board further recommended that respondent be required to
pay restitution in the amount of $2,500, with statutory interest, as a condition of
reinstatement. Respondent did not file exceptions to the Board’s Report and
Recommendation.
Under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(h)(2), “if no exceptions are filed to the Board’s
report, the [c]ourt will enter an order imposing the discipline recommended by the
Board upon the expiration of the time permitted for filing exceptions.” See In re
Viehe, 762 A.2d 542, 543 (D.C. 2000) (per curiam) (“When . . . there are no
exceptions to the Board’s report and recommendation, our deferential standard of
review becomes even more deferential.”). We are satisfied that the record supports
the determination that respondent engaged in intentional misappropriation of
entrusted funds. We therefore adopt the Board’s Report and Recommendation and
determine that respondent should be disbarred with reinstatement conditioned on the
payment of restitution.
Accordingly, it is
5
ORDERED that respondent Donald R. Harris is hereby disbarred from the
practice of law in this jurisdiction. Respondent must pay restitution to Ms. Bailey,
the client who paid the fee, in the amount of $2,500, with statutory interest calculated
from January 3, 2017, and such repayment is a condition for reinstatement. We
further direct respondent’s attention to the requirements of D.C. Bar. R. IX, § 14,
and their effect on eligibility for reinstatement. See D.C. Bar. R. IX, § 16(c).