In re Takisha Brown, 112 A.3d 913

In 2007 Rue Gordon retained Takisha Brown (a lawyer inexperienced in personal-injury cases) to represent her; Brown agreed to a one-third contingency fee and to pay medical providers from settlement proceeds.
In July 2008 Brown received an $8,900 settlement check, deposited $7,900 into a client trust account, and retained one-third of the recovery for herself; she later withdrew large sums, leaving the trust with insufficient funds to cover bills owed to Drs. Manderson and Randolph.
Dr. Manderson’s final bill ($1,182.46) was not paid when rendered in September 2008; Brown repeatedly told the doctor’s office and Gordon that she had paid and would produce a cancelled check but never did; she paid the bill from personal funds only in April 2010 after a disciplinary complaint.
Brown gave inconsistent explanations: at times claiming she gave cash to her then-husband McGee to pay Manderson and that she gave Gordon $1,500 for the Randolph obligation; the Hearing Committee found these claims uncorroborated and not credible.
The Hearing Committee found by clear and convincing evidence that Brown intentionally misappropriated client funds and made reckless misrepresentations, violating D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct (including Rules 1.15, 1.5(c), 1.4, and 8.4(c)); recommended disbarment, which the Board adopted and the Court of Appeals accepted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Credibility of Brown’s testimony about cash payments to McGee and Gordon	Bar Counsel: Brown’s claims are uncorroborated and contradicted by records and witnesses	Brown: Personal circumstances and affidavit from McGee support her account	Hearing Committee credibility determinations upheld; substantial evidence supports discrediting Brown’s testimony
Whether Brown intentionally misappropriated client funds	Bar Counsel: Withdrawals caused trust to fall below amounts owed and constituted intentional misappropriation	Brown: Any shortfall was inadvertent or explained by cash payments she made	Court upheld finding of intentional misappropriation (and alternatively reckless misappropriation) based on record
Whether Brown made false statements with reckless disregard for truth	Bar Counsel: Brown told Gordon and Manderson’s office she had paid when she had not	Brown: Statements reflected stress and personal difficulties	Court affirmed finding of reckless misrepresentation; Brown’s lies were aggravating
Appropriate sanction (disbarment)	Bar Counsel/Board: Presumptive sanction for intentional misappropriation is disbarment absent extraordinary mitigation	Brown: Mitigating factors (no prior discipline, pregnancy, marital problems, ultimate payment, no client financial harm, good character) warrant lesser sanction	Disbarment affirmed; mitigating factors insufficient to overcome presumption given aggravation by dishonesty

In re Anderson, 778 A.2d 330 (D.C. 2001) (misappropriation occurs when attorney’s account balance falls below client entitlement)
In re Sabo, 49 A.3d 1219 (D.C. 2012) (deference to Hearing Committee credibility findings when supported by substantial evidence)
In re Morrell, 684 A.2d 361 (D.C. 1996) (factfinder may credit evidence it prefers without addressing every piece of contrary evidence)
In re Omwenga, 49 A.3d 1235 (D.C. 2012) (presumptive disbarment for intentional misappropriation)
In re Pierson, 690 A.2d 941 (D.C. 1997) (mitigation must be especially strong to overcome presumption of disbarment)
In re Cloud, 939 A.2d 653 (D.C. 2008) (medical/financial problems and good character normally insufficient to avoid disbarment for intentional misappropriation)
In re Robinson, 583 A.2d 691 (D.C. 1990) (discussion of mitigation factors where misappropriation involved small sums and short duration)
In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190 (D.C. 1990) (attorney dishonesty is an aggravating factor even when client not harmed)