314 A.3d 1219
D.C.2024Background
- Disciplinary Counsel charged attorney Latif S. Doman with several violations of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct arising from an overdraft in his client trust account and from his handling of an employment matter.
- The Hearing Committee found only one violation (failure to keep complete records of client funds), recommending a reprimand, while the Board on Professional Responsibility found additional violations and recommended a 30-day suspension.
- The main underlying facts involve errors with Doman's client trust account (TD Bank issued checks with the wrong account number), Doman's failure to keep proper records, and his incomplete responses to Disciplinary Counsel’s subpoenas.
- Doman provided a spreadsheet regarding the client trust account, claiming it was from the bank, but it was found not to be a bank-created document.
- Procedurally, Doman and Disciplinary Counsel filed exceptions to the Board’s report; the Court ultimately resolved all outstanding issues, including the proper sanction and the imposition of a fitness requirement for reinstatement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to keep client fund records | Doman failed to keep records, violating Rule 1.15 | Doman claimed records were withheld as privileged | Violation proven; Doman failed to keep records |
| Commingling client and personal funds | Client funds and personal funds commingled | No clear evidence of commingling | Not proven by clear and convincing evidence |
| Interference with Disciplinary Counsel | Doman unreasonably failed to provide documents | Claimed subpoena was overbroad and information privileged | Violation proven; serious interference |
| Providing false testimony to Hearing Committee | Doman gave intentionally false testimony | Doman did not knowingly testify falsely | Proven; testimony was intentionally false |
Key Cases Cited
- In re McLain, 671 A.2d 951 (D.C. 1996) (court may decline to decide violations that would not affect the sanction)
- In re Johnson, 275 A.3d 268 (D.C. 2022) (burden of proof and standard for deference to findings in attorney discipline)
- In re Dailey, 230 A.3d 902 (D.C. 2020) (purpose of Rule 1.15(a) is to ensure records allow for a complete audit)
- In re Hessler, 549 A.2d 700 (D.C. 1988) (defining commingling of client and attorney funds)
- In re Kanu, 5 A.3d 1 (D.C. 2010) (Bar Counsel need not file a motion to compel before charging for failure to comply)
- In re Cleaver-Bascombe, 892 A.2d 396 (D.C. 2006) (falsity in testimony is a significant aggravating factor for sanction)