IN RE LAYN M. SAINT-LOUIS, 147 A.3d 1135

Background

In 2004 Ovlas Trading S.A. retained Saint‑Louis’s firm SL&J for aircraft purchase work; Ovlas wired $545,000 to SL&J, $45,000 earmarked for fees/expenses. SL&J was required to provide monthly statements and hold unearned funds in escrow.
Disputes arose mid‑2004 over work, fees, and handling of funds; Ovlas demanded proof of an escrow account and questioned withdrawals and bills submitted by SL&J.
Bank records show large deposits to SL&J’s escrow account and multiple withdrawals from July–November 2004; SL&J operating account records show transfers corresponding to many escrow withdrawals. Some funds were later routed to SL&J accounts, a money market account, and to respondent’s wife.
Employee testimony and documents (e.g., misdated/altered conference notes, billing entries for a non‑barred clerk) undermined Saint‑Louis’s explanations about authorization and billing; he admitted no written amended retainer authorized the substantial withdrawals or the higher hourly rate.
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated years later (charges filed 2012/2013); the Hearing Committee, Board, and this Court found intentional or reckless misappropriation and dishonesty, recommended disbarment despite acknowledging an inexcusable multi‑year prosecutorial delay.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Disciplinary Counsel proved misappropriation of client funds	Ovlas/Disciplinary Counsel: withdrawals and transfers of entrusted funds to firm/third parties without written authorization show misappropriation	Saint‑Louis: withdrawals were authorized orally or by course of conduct; fees earned; no written amended retainer required	Court: Proven by clear and convincing evidence; misappropriation was intentional or reckless; no written authorization existed
Whether respondent engaged in dishonest conduct	Disciplinary Counsel: altered/contradictory records, improper billing, misleading bank faxes and false entries show dishonesty	Saint‑Louis: challenges credibility of adverse hearsay (Adoga letter) and documentary interpretations	Court: Dishonesty established by multiple contemporaneous documents and witness testimony beyond hearsay letter
Whether excessive prosecutorial delay requires dismissal or mitigation	Saint‑Louis: multi‑year delay deprived him of ability to secure witnesses, violated due process, and warrants mitigation/dismissal	Disciplinary Counsel: delay was inexcusable but did not prejudice respondent’s defense	Held: Delay was troubling but did not cause actual prejudice or due process violation; not a mitigating factor sufficient to avoid disbarment
Appropriate sanction for findings	Disciplinary Counsel/Board: disbarment warranted for intentional/reckless misappropriation and dishonesty	Saint‑Louis: disbarment excessive given lack of intent, delay, and his prior good record	Held: Disbarment affirmed—misappropriation and dishonesty normally warrant disbarment absent mere negligence

Key Cases Cited

In re Howes, 52 A.3d 1 (D.C. 2012) (standard of review; accepting committee factual findings if supported by substantial evidence)
In re Cleaver‑Bascombe, 986 A.2d 1191 (D.C. 2010) (procedural standards for review)
In re Rodriguez‑Quesada, 122 A.3d 913 (D.C. 2015) (adopt Board sanctions unless inconsistent with comparable conduct)
In re Anderson, 778 A.2d 330 (D.C. 2001) (definition of misappropriation; negligent versus reckless/intentional misappropriation)
In re Fair, 780 A.2d 1106 (D.C. 2001) (reckless misappropriation and disbarment standard)
In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190 (D.C. 1990) (disbarment normally required for misappropriation absent simple negligence)
In re Williams, 513 A.2d 793 (D.C. 1986) (delay in prosecution does not alone require dismissal; actual prejudice required)
In re Scheider, 553 A.2d 206 (D.C. 1989) (delay may mitigate sanction only in compelling circumstances)
In re Ponds, 888 A.2d 234 (D.C. 2005) (delay and mitigation principles)
In re Fowler, 642 A.2d 1327 (D.C. 1994) (mitigation for delay requires unique and compelling circumstances)
In re Berryman, 764 A.2d 760 (D.C. 2000) (misappropriation treated as per se offense)
In re Harrison, 461 A.2d 1034 (D.C. 1983) (misappropriation case law foundation)
In re Hewett, 11 A.3d 279 (D.C. 2011) (reckless misappropriation principles)
In re Bach, 966 A.2d 350 (D.C. 2009) (disbarment for misappropriation)