In Re Kline
11 A.3d 261
| D.C. | 2011Background
- Respondent Andrew J. Kline, a DC Bar member, engaged in a pattern of serious ethical violations including misappropriation of client funds, forgery, and deceit.
- In 2004–2005, Kline failed to respond to discovery, permitted a default judgment against his client The Ad Agency, Inc., and negotiated a $50,000 settlement with the Savino defendants without client approval.
- Kline forged his client's signature on a settlement and used trust funds to pay settlement, commingling personal and client funds in a trust account.
- The District of Columbia Bar and Hearing Committee found violations of multiple Rules of Professional Conduct, notably 8.4(b), 8.4(c), 1.15(a), and 1.3(b)(2).
- The Board recommended an eighteen-month suspension with nine months stayed for probation; Bar Counsel urged disbarment or a harsher sanction.
- The Court suspended Kline for three years, without a fitness reinstatement requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Misappropriation: reckless or negligent conduct | Bar Counsel argues misappropriation was reckless. | Kline argues conduct was negligent. | Misappropriation found negligent, not reckless. |
| Appropriate sanction for serious misconduct | Board's 18-month suspension adequate. | Discipline should be harsher given gravity. | Three-year suspension warranted; greater than Board’s recommendation. |
| Whether disbarment was warranted due to forgery and moral turpitude | Disbarment should follow from forgery and deceit. | Disbarment not necessary; other sanctions possible. | Disbarment not imposed; three-year suspension chosen. |
| Need for a fitness requirement for reinstatement | Respondent should show fitness before reinstatement. | No fitness requirement needed for reinstatement. | No fitness showing required for reinstatement. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Bettis, 855 A.2d 282 (DC 2004) (governs when Board's sanction should be adopted or rejected based on seriousness of misconduct)
- In re Kennedy, 542 A.2d 1225 (DC 1988) (court discretion in sanctions when Board's view on seriousness is used)
- In re Reback, 513 A.2d 226 (DC 1986) (guides final sanction considerations for grave misconduct)
- In re Slaughter, 929 A.2d 433 (DC 2007) (forgery and dishonesty as aggravating factors; fitness considerations)
- In re Daniel, 11 A.3d 291 (DC 2011) (three-year suspension for dishonesty and related misconduct; no fitness prerequisite)
- In re Perrin, 663 A.2d 517 (DC 1995) (sanctions for large-scale dishonesty in practice)
- In re Slattery, 767 A.2d 203 (DC 2001) (context for dishonesty and disciplinary responses)
- In re Steele, 868 A.2d 146 (DC 2005) (three-year suspension for neglect and related misconduct)
- In re Sheehy, 454 A.2d 1360 (DC 1983) (two-year suspension for neglect and deceit)
- In re Moore, 691 A.2d 1151 (DC 1997) (three-year suspension for multiple acts of dishonesty and related misconduct)
- In re Roundtree, 503 A.2d 1215 (DC 1985) (criteria for determining sanctions and rehabilitation considerations)