In re Gregory L. Lattimer, 223 A.3d 437

Background

Respondent Gregory L. Lattimer represented three clients and was charged with multiple ethics violations for failures in communication (D.C. Rule 1.4(a)), competence and diligence (Va. Rules 1.1, 1.3(a)), and dishonesty/misrepresentation (Va. Rule 8.4(c)).
In D.C. matters, Lattimer met incarcerated client Roderick Strange once, ignored numerous collect calls and other attempts at contact for six months, never entered appearance or filed an appeal brief, and sought unpaid fees months later.
In a federal civil rights matter, client Toby Cooper repeatedly sent documents, emails, and calls; Lattimer made minimal email contact, never returned calls, and was discharged and asked to refund her retainer.
In Virginia, Denise Wilkins sued over her son’s death at Central State Hospital; Lattimer filed suit naming the wrong hospital director (Ms. Montgomery) and delayed adding the correct director (Dr. Davis), causing Rule 15(c) relation-back failure and dismissal after the district court excluded his late expert disclosure.
At Dr. Davis’s deposition Lattimer elicited testimony that Davis retired in 2010, yet Lattimer later told the Fourth Circuit that Davis still had an office and practiced at the hospital; the Fourth Circuit noted this was contradicted by the record.
The Board recommended a 60-day suspension plus restitution; the court adopted that sanction, added a fitness-for-reinstatement requirement, and found clear and convincing evidence of the cited Rule violations.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lattimer violated D.C. Rule 1.4(a) by failing to communicate with clients (Strange, Cooper)	Disciplinary Counsel: Lattimer ignored client contact and failed to keep clients reasonably informed	Lattimer: Disputes facts; claims clients had no expectation or did not properly attempt contact	Held: Violations of Rule 1.4(a) for both clients (failure to respond and maintain contact)
Whether Lattimer violated Va. Rules 1.1 and 1.3(a) by inadequate investigation and delay in Wilkins case	Counsel: He failed to investigate who the hospital director was, did not timely engage an expert, and missed opportunities to add the correct defendant	Lattimer: Had litigation discretion; claims he investigated (internet, personnel) and was hampered by facts and prior counsel’s expert	Held: Violations of Rules 1.1 and 1.3(a) for inadequate investigation, failing to timely add proper defendant, and late expert disclosure
Whether Lattimer violated Va. Rule 8.4(c) by misrepresenting facts to the Fourth Circuit about Dr. Davis	Counsel: Lattimer made unqualified, record-contradicted assertions that Dr. Davis still had an office and practiced at the hospital	Lattimer: Argued he could contest deposition credibility and advocate zealously; claimed internet sources supported his view	Held: Violation of Rule 8.4(c) for misrepresentation of record facts to appellate court
Appropriate sanction: suspension, restitution, and fitness requirement	Board/Disciplinary Counsel: 60-day suspension, restitution, and request for fitness requirement given pattern of conduct	Lattimer: Opposed suspension and fitness requirement; disputed findings	Held: Court adopted 60-day suspension and restitution, and imposed additional fitness-for-reinstatement requirement due to refusal to accept responsibility, frivolous suit against a client, and revisionist narratives

Key Cases Cited

In re Tun, 195 A.3d 65 (D.C. 2018) (standard: disciplinary violations must be proved by clear and convincing evidence)
In re Howes, 52 A.3d 1 (D.C. 2012) (appellate review accepts Board factfinding supported by substantial evidence)
In re Bernstein, 707 A.2d 371 (D.C. 1998) (failure to return calls/requests violates Rule 1.4)
In re Fitzgerald, 982 A.2d 743 (D.C. 2009) (heightened concern where incarcerated client is not communicated with)
Wilkins v. Montgomery, 751 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. 2014) (relation-back and expert-disclosure issues; appellate rejection of late amendments/excluded expert)
In re Liotti, 667 F.3d 419 (4th Cir. 2011) (appellate counsel’s duty of candor; misrepresentations to court can violate professional conduct rules)
In re Cater, 887 A.2d 1 (D.C. 2005) (distinguishing suspension from fitness requirements; factors for requiring proof of fitness)
In re Chapman, 962 A.2d 922 (D.C. 2009) (deference to Board sanctions but ultimate court responsibility)
In re Fox, 35 A.3d 441 (D.C. 2012) (precedent for suspension in comparable misconduct)