On Wednesday, July 30, 2025, the District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility dismissed all charges against attorney Darryl A. Feldman. The decision followed a disciplinary hearing regarding Feldman’s conduct during a child support modification case representing his client, Christopher Libertelli.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Darryl A. Feldman,” with case no. 22-BD-083.
On October 2, 2020, Feldman filed a motion on behalf of Libertelli to reduce his monthly child support payments from nearly $20,000. The allegations against Feldman included failing to disclose all urine test results related to Libertelli’s drug use and conducting a limited examination of his client during the motion hearing. Disciplinary Counsel claimed this conduct violated several Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, particularly those regarding dishonesty and misrepresentation.
Following a four-day hearing that concluded in January 2025, the Hearing Committee determined that the charges were not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. They recommended dismissing the case, stating that Feldman did not knowingly engage in any misconduct that would undermine the administration of justice.
Disciplinary Counsel subsequently filed an exception to the Committee’s findings, arguing that Feldman intentionally omitted material facts regarding Libertelli’s drug tests, which they asserted indicated an intent to mislead the court. However, Feldman contended that he had not intended to deceive and maintained that the tests he submitted were relevant to demonstrating his client’s recovery progress.
The Board reviewed the Hearing Committee’s findings and the evidence presented during the hearing. They emphasized that proving a violation of professional conduct rules related to dishonesty requires establishing intent to deceive. The Board concluded that Disciplinary Counsel did not demonstrate such intent in Feldman’s omissions regarding prior drug tests.
In the final ruling, the Board also addressed the broader implications of the case. They highlighted that omissions in legal representations do not automatically equate to dishonesty, particularly when there is no intent to deceive. The Board reiterated that the professional conduct rules do not require attorneys to disclose every material fact unless it is necessary to avoid assisting in a fraudulent act.
After reviewing the evidence and arguments, the Board ultimately dismissed all charges against Feldman. The decision affirmed the earlier findings of the Hearing Committee.
The Disposition states:
“For the foregoing reasons, we find that Disciplinary Counsel did not prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent engaged in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and/or misrepresentation in violation of Md. Rule 19-308.4(c) or prejudiced the administration of justice in violation of Md. Rule 19-308.4(d). The Md. Rule 19- 303.3(a)(2), 19-304.1(a)(2), and 19-304.1(a)(2) charges were also not proven by clear and convincing evidence. Accordingly, we dismiss all charges against Respondent in this matter.”
According to Martindale.com, Mr. Feldman attended the University of Baltimore School of Law, graduating in 1994. He acquired his law license in D.C. in 1995.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
