In re Mack

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. 23-BG-0303
IN RE CATHERINE R. MACK, RESPONDENT.
A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
(Bar Registration No. 204149)
On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional
Responsibility Ad Hoc Hearing Committee
Approving Petition for Negotiated Discipline
(BDN: 22-ND-001; DDN: 2018-D053)
(Decided: May 25, 2023)
Before BECKWITH, EASTERLY, and MCLEESE, Associate Judges.
PER CURIAM: This decision is non-precedential. Please refer to D.C. Bar R.
XI, § 12.1(d) regarding the appropriate citation of this opinion.
In this disciplinary matter, the Hearing Committee recommends approval of a
petition for negotiated attorney discipline. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(c).
Respondent Catherine R. Mack voluntarily acknowledged that she commingled
entrusted funds with her own property and failed to maintain complete financial
records of entrusted funds. As a result, respondent admits that she violated D.C. R.
2
Prof. Conduct 1.15(a). The proposed discipline consists of a public censure, one
year of probation with conditions, and the possibility that Disciplinary Counsel may
investigate her for “conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of
justice,” id. R. 8.4(d), if she fails to comply with those conditions.
Having reviewed the Committee’s recommendation in accordance with our
procedures in uncontested disciplinary cases, see D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(d), we agree
that this case is appropriate for negotiated discipline and that “the agreed-upon
sanction is ‘justified.’” In re Mensah, 262 A.3d 1100, 1104 (D.C. 2021) (per curiam)
(quoting D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(c)(3)); see, e.g., In re Iwuji, 223 A.3d 108 (D.C.
2020) (per curiam) (imposing a similar sanction for similar violations). We are
satisfied that the dishonored check in question would not support a charge of
misappropriation (negligent or otherwise) because it involved an attempted transfer
between respondent’s IOLTA and her operating account, such that she would have
continued to hold the requisite amount of entrusted funds between those two
accounts even had the check cleared. See In re Ekekwe-Kauffman, 210 A.3d 775,
794 (D.C. 2019) (per curiam) (“[E]ven depositing unearned funds into an operating
account, though it violates Rule 1.15’s prohibition against commingling, does not
alone constitute misappropriation. . . . For misappropriation to occur, the balance in
that account must fall below the amount the lawyer was required to hold in trust for
3
the client at that particular time.”) (emphasis added); In re Pels, 653 A.2d 388, 394-
95 (D.C. 1995) (confirming that misappropriation occurs when a check disbursing
entrusted funds is dishonored if there is no evidence that the attorney held sufficient
funds in another account). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that respondent Catherine R. Mack is hereby publicly censured
and placed on one year of probation with the following conditions:
(i) respondent will not be the subject of a disciplinary complaint that
results in a finding that she violated the disciplinary rules of any jurisdiction
in which she is licensed to practice during the probationary period;
(ii) respondent will, not later than 30 days after the issuance of this opinion,
notify Disciplinary Counsel in writing of all jurisdictions in which she is or
has been licensed to practice;
(iii) respondent will notify Disciplinary Counsel promptly of any ethics
complaint against her and its disposition;
(iv) respondent will take the new admittees continuing legal education
(CLE) course not later than 30 days after the issuance of this opinion and will
provide Disciplinary Counsel with proof of attendance at the CLE within 30
days; and
4
(v) respondent will, not later than 30 days after the issuance of this opinion,
consult with Dan Mills, Esquire, and the D.C. Bar’s Practice Management
Advisory Service to conduct a review of her practices surrounding how to
handle—and document processing of—entrusted funds, and she will waive
confidentiality regarding all aspects of that review.
If respondent fails to satisfy any of these conditions, Disciplinary Counsel may
revoke her probation and docket an investigation into whether she has seriously
interfered with the administration of justice in violation of D.C. R. Prof. Conduct
8.4(d).
So ordered.