On Monday, June 5, 2023, attorney Sylvia J. Rolinski faced repercussions from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel in the District of Columbia as she received an informal admonition. The disciplinary action was taken due to her filing of late reports in a guardianship matter, leading to delinquency notices and summary hearings.

The case is entitled “In the Matter of Sylvia J. Rolinski,” with case no. 2015-D231.

The charges cited DC Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5(a), 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(d) which states:

Unreasonable Fee.

Knowingly making a false statement to a court.

Serious interference with the administration of justice.

The Rules of Professional Conduct can be found here.

The Hearing Committee’s findings of fact reveal that the respondent was appointed as a guardian for two adult wards. As part of her duties, she was required to file periodic reports with the Probate Court and seek court approval for her compensation. However, she consistently filed reports late, resulting in delinquency notices and summary hearings. Additionally, the respondent failed to file a timely “Suggestion of Death” after one of the wards passed away, causing confusion and delays in the Probate Division’s processes.

In another case, the respondent was appointed as a guardian for an individual and was required to file a guardianship plan within 90 days. She submitted the plan late, leading to a delinquency notice and a scheduled summary hearing. The respondent also overbilled for her services, including claiming excessive hours for hearings where she appeared via telephone. Her petition for compensation was significantly reduced by the court due to vague and inflated descriptions of the services provided. Although she filed a motion for reconsideration, it was ultimately denied.

The filing states:

“Respondent was supposed to file a “Suggestion of Death” “‘forthwith’” after Ms. Toliver-Woody died on June 20, 2011. FF 37, 88. This would inform the Probate Division and interested third parties that the process of addressing the ward’s assets must begin. FF 37. Respondent never filed a Suggestion of Death and instead notified the Probate Court of Ms. Toliv er-Woody’s death in her 13th and Final Report, which she filed on August 10, 2011, after receiving a delinquency notice and after a Summary Hearing was scheduled. FF 89-91. As a result, the Probate Division was unaware of Ms. Toliver-Woody s death for approximately two months, during which it continued to operate as if she were still alive, which means that deadlines, ticklers, delinquency notices, and summary hearings continued to be set and issued for required filings. FF 37. The information contained in the Guardianship Report informed the Court of Ms. Toliver-Woody’s death so that it could proceed with the termination of the guardianship.”

The filing continues:

“Relevant to the issues before the Board, the Order contained a section titled “‘Gross Overbilling for Time Spent on Court Hearings Where Ms . Rolinski Appeared Via Telephone is Inappropriate, Unethical, and Will Not be Compensated,’” where Judge Christian noted that Respondent’s time entries for hearings on June 3, 2013, August 28, 2013, and October 11, 2013 “‘are conspicuously for three hours,’” that Respondent “‘should be aware that travel to and from the courthouse is not compensable and therefore, her time entry of three hours is unreasonable, inflated, and should be reduced to the actual time spent on the hear ing,’” and that the docket sheet showed that Respondent had participated in the August 28, 2013, and October 11, 2013 hearings by telephone.”

The Hearing Committee majority concluded that the respondent made 11 delinquent filings which, in their entirety, caused some person or component in the judicial process to take material corrective or other measures that would not otherwise have been necessary. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel agreed that the Hearing Committee that an informal admonition of at least a severe form of discipline is consistent with the sanctions imposed in cases involving comparable misconduct. However, the same also considered that the respondent’s single recklessly false statement, made under the unique time pressure created by the deadline for filing the motion for reconsideration, is not sufficiently aggravating to impose a more serious sanction.

The conclusion states:

“For the reasons stated above, we find that Respondent violated Rules 8.4(c)and 8.4(d) and direct Disciplinary Counsel to informally admonish Respondent.”

Ms. Rolinski is licensed in the District of Columbia with license no. 430573.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.