In Re Hessler
1988 D.C. App. LEXIS 190, 1988 WL 112834, 549 A.2d 700 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In attorney disciplinary proceedings, misappropriation of client funds resulting from simple negligence, rather than intentional dishonesty, will not typically warrant disbarment, and the appropriate sanction should be determined by weighing the misconduct against any aggravating and mitigating factors.
Facts:
- Stephen O. Hessler represented a client, 'Betty Cox', in a landlord-tenant dispute.
- Following a settlement, Hessler received a check for $1,862 from the Court Registry on behalf of Cox on August 1, 1984.
- Hessler and Cox had an agreement that Hessler would deduct his $950 legal fee from the funds and forward the balance to her.
- Hessler deposited the entire $1,862 into his personal operating bank account, not a dedicated client trust account.
- On August 17, 1984, Hessler mailed a check for the $912 balance to Cox, but she never received it.
- Between August 1984 and February 1985, the balance in Hessler's operating account frequently fell below the $912 he owed to Cox because he did not keep a running balance and relied on an off-site bookkeeper.
- After Cox retained new counsel to inquire about the payment, Hessler investigated and discovered the first check was never cashed.
- On February 2, 1985, Hessler issued a new check for $912 to Cox, which she received and negotiated.
Procedural Posture:
- Bar Counsel filed a Petition with the District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility charging attorney Stephen O. Hessler with four violations of the Disciplinary Rules.
- An evidentiary hearing was held before a Hearing Committee.
- The Hearing Committee found Hessler had committed commingling and negligent misappropriation, but dismissed charges of dishonesty and failure to promptly pay.
- The Hearing Committee recommended that Hessler be suspended from the practice of law for one year.
- The Board on Professional Responsibility adopted the Hearing Committee’s findings and recommendation, forwarding the one-year suspension recommendation to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
- The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the Board's recommendation.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a six-month suspension, rather than a longer suspension or disbarment, the appropriate disciplinary sanction for an attorney who commingles client funds with personal funds and subsequently misappropriates those funds through simple negligence, where numerous mitigating factors exist?
Opinions:
Majority - Steadman, J.
Yes. A six-month suspension is the appropriate sanction under these circumstances. The court distinguishes this case from its precedent in In re Hines, which established disbarment as the norm for misappropriation. The Hines rule contains an exception for misconduct resulting from 'nothing more than simple negligence,' which applies here. The court found that Hessler's commingling and subsequent misappropriation were negligent and inadvertent, not intentional or dishonest. The decision to reduce the Board's recommended one-year suspension to six months is justified by the presence of numerous undisputed mitigating factors: Hessler's lack of prior discipline, his full cooperation, the absence of financial harm to the client, the fact his poor practices occurred while he was a sole practitioner with inadequate support, the corrective measures he has since taken by joining a firm, and delays in the disciplinary process. These factors weigh heavily against a more severe sanction.
Dissenting - Board Member Foster
No. A suspension of a year and a day would be the appropriate sanction. This opinion, from the Board on Professional Responsibility's report, argues that the case is not meaningfully distinguishable from In re Harrison, which imposed a year-and-a-day suspension for similar conduct. The dissent contends that Hessler violated the duty to promptly pay client funds, as he delayed for fifty-six days after being notified on December 8 that his client had not received her money. This delay was inexcusable and constituted a separate, serious violation. To maintain consistency in disciplinary sanctions as required by court rules, Hessler's misconduct warrants a long-term suspension comparable to that in Harrison.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the 'simple negligence' exception to the general rule of disbarment for misappropriation of client funds established in In re Hines. It confirms that unintentional misappropriation due to poor bookkeeping, while a serious ethical breach, is distinct from intentional conversion. The case establishes a strong precedent for the significant role of mitigating factors in determining the final disciplinary sanction. For future cases, this opinion provides a framework where courts will conduct a nuanced, fact-specific inquiry into an attorney's culpability and surrounding circumstances, rather than applying a rigid rule, thereby allowing for lesser sanctions like suspension where intent to steal is absent and mitigating factors are compelling.
