D.C. Court of Appeals suspends Washington attorney for ethical violations in labor suit

On Thursday, October 13, 2022, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled on the report and recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility recommending the suspension of Washington Attorney Samuel Bailey, Jr. from the practice of law for one year on allegations of ethical violations in his representation of Allen Laster.

The case titled In Re Samuel Bailey, Jr. was brought by the Office of the Disciplinary Counsel, case no. 21-BG-476.

The charges cited D.C. R. Prof. Cond. 1.4(a), 1.4(b), 1.5(a)and (e), and 8.4(c) of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct.

The District of Columbia Rules on Professional Conduct can be found here.

This case involves Respondent’s representation of Allen later in a labor suit.

The complaint states:

“Laster approached Bailey in search of representation. Laster and Bailey discussed the lawsuit and a related complaint that Laster had lodged with the District of Columbia Office of Human Rights (“OHR”). Because Bailey did not have the expertise to handle Laster’s case, Bailey explained that he could enlist Clifford Stewart, a New Jersey attorney with relevant experience, with Bailey serving as local co-counsel. A few days later, Bailey contacted Stewart, and the two of them began working on the case by September 11, 2013.”

“It was not until three months later, in December 2013, that Bailey sent Laster a representation agreement, setting forth the scope of work that he and Stewart would perform, along with their attendant fees. Laster testified that he did not understandthe agreement, but signed it after Bailey assured him that he would explain the agreement’s terms at a later meeting. That discussion never took place.”

The complaint continues:

“The agreement that Bailey sent Laster: (1) pertained only to the federal litigation, and made no mention of the OHR proceeding; (2) failed to mention the Annuity Fund defendant; and (3) purported to be a “partial contingent fee contract,” but was cryptic in the particulars of how that fee would be calculated. While the agreement explained that counsel would take 40% of Laster’s recovery “after deduction of costs” as compensation, it also referenced a $30,000 initial fee, purportedly for anticipated “costs and expenses,” owed in 30 monthly $1,000 installments. ”

The complaint additionally notes:

“The agreement mentioned at least three different hourly rates that Bailey charges, but explained that “[t]he above costs and expenses are not hourly fees but are a reflection of fees in that they represent Counsel’s discounted hourly rate of $400.00 per hour.” In addition to this murkiness, the agreement contained
contradictory information as to when payments would be due and considered late. Even though the agreement made clear that Stewart would be involved in the litigation of the case, it did not delineate the division of responsibility between the two attorneys, but instead ambiguously reassured Laster that “[i]f associated counsel is retained no additional costs will be required of Client.” The agreement also contained a provision stating that if Bailey were “discharge[d] . . . for any reason other than just cause,” Bailey would be entitled to “an amount equal to the greater of: (1) the above agreed percentage or [sic] gross recovery or $500 per hour for services performed to date of discharge..”

The complaint finally notes:

“Over the course of the representation, Laster paid Bailey at least $12,300. Nonetheless, Bailey failed to provide Laster with receipts for his payments, even upon request. When Laster eventually fired Bailey, Bailey produced an invoice, charging Laster $85,270 for 221.75 hours of work. ”

The Ad Hoc Hearing Committee found that Disciplinary Counsel supported all of the above-mentioned charges with clear and convincing evidence.

The Board on Professional Responsibility, however, disagreed with regard to Rules 1.1(a), 1.1(b), and 8.4(d), though it agreed with the Hearing Committee that Bailey committed the other five rule violations. The Board ultimately recommended that Bailey be suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for one year.

Respondent, in response to the Board’s report, conceded that there were errors in addition on the invoice, but contended that they do not amount to “intentional overbilling.”

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled for the respondent’s suspension from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for one year with reinstatement conditioned on demonstrating fitness to practice law.

The order states:

“Accordingly, it is ordered that Samuel Bailey, Jr., is suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbiafor a period of twelve months. His reinstatement is conditioned on him making a satisfactory showing that he is fit to practice law in theDistrict of Columbia. We further direct Bailey’s attention to the requirementsofD.C. Bar R. XI, § 14, and their effect on his eligibility for reinstatement.SeeD.C.Bar R. XI, § 16(c).”

According to Facebook, Mr. Samuel Bailey, Jr. graduated from Rutgers Law School. He has practiced in Washington, DC, where he maintains Samuel Bailey & Associates. He has been licensed in the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania. His info can also be found on Avvo.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.