On August 5, 2022, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility, on its Report and Recommendation, ordered the suspension of a Washington attorney, Latif S. Doman for failing to comply with the Rules of Professional conduct.
The case is styled ‘In the Matter of Latif S. Doman’ with Case #17-BD-059.
The charges cited rules of professional conduct Rules 1.1(a), 1.1(b), 1.15(a) (record keeping), and 8.4(d), which states that:
Provide competent representation to a client,” which requires the “legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.
A lawyer shall serve a client with skill and care commensurate with that generally afforded to clients by other lawyers in similar matters”
Requires lawyers to keep “complete records of entrusted funds” and preserve them “for a period of five years after termination of the representation
Serious Interference with the Administration of Justice: it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to “engage in conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice,” which includes “interfering with Disciplinary Counsel’s efforts to investigate attorney misconduct.
The rules of professional conduct can be found online.
The following are as alleged and summarized from the filing:
Respondent, Latif S. Doman, was charged in a two-count Specification of Charges with violating multiple Rules of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct. Count I involves Respondent’s representation of Complainant in an employment dispute and in litigation against the U.S. Department of Commerce and Count II involves Respondent’s handling of his trust account and his conduct during Disciplinary Counsel’s investigation of an IOLTA overdraft notice.
The filing states:
“Respondent ignores his own argument to Judge Furcolo when seeking additional time to propound discovery: that Complainant “would suffer tremendous prejudice if she is not permitted any written discovery. She has not yet had an opportunity to learn the positions of the Agency or see the information underlying the Agency’s decision. .Respondent cannot claim here that Complainant did not need discovery after arguing to Judge Furcolo that she would be prejudiced without it. Respondent offers no evidence that Complainant’s need for discovery changed between January 22, 2008, when Respondent argued that Complainant would “ suffer tremendous prejudice”. without discovery, and January 29 or February 15, 2008, when he declined to oppose the Agency’s motions to preclude discovery. We conclude that Respondent’s failure to oppose either of the motions to foreclose dis cover violated Rules 1.1(a) and 1.1(b) because Respondent failed to advocate for his client, assuming instead that Judge Furcolo would share his view that the Agency’s motions were improper. Such inaction is not reasonable professional judgment.”
The filing continues:
“Respondent chose not to produce records of his handling of entrusted funds at his peril. We reject the notion that Disciplinary Counsel should bear the burden of Respondent’s recalcitrance. We agree with the Hearing Committee that Disciplinary Counsel proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respon dent did not maintain the records required by Rule 1.15(a).”
The filing further alleges:
“We conclude that Respondent violated Rule 8.4(d) by failing to adequately apprise Disciplinary Counsel that he was withholding documents on privilege grounds. Disciplinary Counsel has established, and Respondent concedes, that he did not produce all documents responsive to Disciplinary Counsel’s subpoenas. Respondent argues that he is excused from full compliance with the subpoena because he informed Disciplinary Counsel that he was withholding privileged documents, and Disciplinary Counsel did not compel their production. He understood that by failing to move to compel, Disciplinary Counsel signaled its acquiescence with Respondent’s decision to withhold privileged documents. However, the record shows by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent did not assert a privilege objection or inform Disciplinary Counsel that privileged documents were being withheld from his production.”
With the foregoing facts and discussions, the court rules against the Respondent in relation to the above cited Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Disposition states that:
“For the foregoing reasons, the Board recommends that the Court conclude that Disciplinary Counsel has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Rules 1.1(a), 1.1(b), 1.15(a) (record keeping) and 8.4(d), that he gave protracted false testimony to the Hearing Committee and should be suspended for a period of thirty days.”
Mr. Doman attended University of Pennsylvania and graduated in 1995. Doman practices in Washington, District of Columbia. His info can be found at LinkedIn online.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
