In re Edward N. Matisik , 186 A.3d 117 ( 2018 )

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. 18-BG-98
IN RE EDWARD N. MATISIK, RESPONDENT.
A Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
(Bar Registration No. 463786)
On Report and Recommendation
Of the Board on Professional Responsibility
(Board Docket Number 13-BD-091)
(BDN 193-11)
(Decided June 7, 2018)
Before FISHER and BECKWITH, Associate Judges, and FARRELL, Senior
Judge.
PER CURIAM: In this case, the Board on Professional Responsibility has
adopted the Ad Hoc Hearing Committee’s report and recommendation that
respondent be disbarred from the practice of law. Neither Mr. Matisik1 nor
1
Mr. Matisik was previously suspended by this court for sixty days with a
fitness and restitution requirement. In re Matisik, 77 A.3d 1009 (D.C. 2013). The
record in that case does not indicate that respondent has filed his required affidavit.
2
Disciplinary Counsel has filed an exception to the Board’s Report and
Recommendation.
The Committee issued its report pursuant to the default procedures
established by D.C. Bar R. XI § 8 (f) after respondent Edward Matisik failed to
respond to Disciplinary Counsel’s specification of charges. Under this procedure
Disciplinary Counsel filed a motion for default that proceeded unopposed.
Pursuant to these procedures the allegations outlined in the petition are deemed
admitted by respondent. Therefore, based on the sworn statements of Disciplinary
Counsel the Committee found that respondent failed to competently and diligently
represent his corporate client when he failed to file the necessary registration forms
and then misrepresented his actions to his client. In addition, the Committee found
that respondent used entrusted client funds as his own funds and that those actions
constituted intentional misappropriation of client funds.2 After finding intentional
misappropriation of entrusted funds, the Hearing Committee recommended that
respondent be disbarred. Neither respondent nor Disciplinary Counsel filed any
exceptions to the Committee’s report.
2
Respondent was specifically found to have violated the Rules of
Professional Conduct 1.1 (a), 1.1 (b), 1.3 (a), 1.3 (b)(1), 1.3 (c), 1.4 (a), 1.4 (b),
1.15 (a), 1.15 (e), 1.16 (d), 5.5 (a), and 8.4 (c).
3
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 also In
re Viehe, 762 A.2d 542, 543 (D.C. 2000) (“When . . . there are no exceptions to the
Board’s report and recommendation, our deferential standard of review becomes
even more deferential.”). In this case, respondent has failed to respond to any of
the charges or participate during any stage in this proceeding, and we have
previously held that disbarment is the appropriate discipline for intentional
misappropriation. See In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190, 191 (D.C. 1990) (en banc).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Edward Matisik is hereby disbarred. For purposes of
reinstatement the period of respondent’s disbarment will not begin to run until such
time as he files a D.C. Bar R. XI § 14 (g) affidavit.
So ordered.