In the Matter of Melvin M. Burton, Jr.

472 A.2d 831 (D.C. 1984) · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · January 11, 1984 · No. Nos. M-143-82; 83-492

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals disbarred Melvin M. Burton, Jr. for commingling and misappropriating funds held as a court-appointed trustee and for misrepresenting his income to the Auditor-Master. The court adopted the Board on Professional Responsibility's findings that Burton violated Disciplinary Rules 9-102(A) and 1-102(A)(4).

Holdings

  1. The documentary exhibits and bank records were sufficient to establish a prima facie case and supported the findings that Burton commingled fiduciary funds and misappropriated trust funds through unauthorized withdrawals.
  2. Disciplinary Rule 9-102(A) applies when an attorney assumes a fiduciary relationship and mishandles funds, even when no conventional attorney-client relationship exists.
  3. DR 9-102(A) prohibits unauthorized withdrawals from an account in which fiduciary funds are required to be maintained, as well as commingling.
  4. Burton knowingly misrepresented his 1979 gross income under oath before the Auditor-Master and thereby violated DR 1-102(A)(4).
  5. Knowing misappropriation of entrusted funds, absent the most stringent extenuating circumstances, requires disbarment; Burton's character evidence and prior unblemished record did not justify a lesser sanction.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether documentary and bank-record evidence established a prima facie case and supported findings of commingling and misappropriation.
  2. Whether Disciplinary Rule 9-102(A), requiring segregation and maintenance of client funds, applies when an attorney holds funds in a fiduciary capacity as a court-appointed trustee rather than in a conventional attorney-client relationship.
  3. Whether unauthorized withdrawals from a trust account violate Disciplinary Rule 9-102(A) in addition to commingling.
  4. Whether Burton's sworn statement to the Auditor-Master that his 1979 gross income exceeded $150,000 constituted dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation under Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(4).
  5. Whether the findings of knowing misappropriation required disbarment despite Burton's prior unblemished disciplinary record and character evidence.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (32)

  • In re McClellen, No. M-51-80 (D.C. Mar. 26, 1981)(followed)
  • In the Matter of Burka, 423 A.2d 181 (D.C. 1980) (en banc)(followed)
  • In re Newsome, No. D-34-79 (D.C. Nov. 21, 1979)(followed)
  • In re Quimby, 123 U.S. App. D.C. 273, 359 F.2d 257 (1966) (per curiam)(followed)
  • In Matter of Thorup, 432 A.2d 1221 (D.C. 1981)(distinguished)
  • Charlton v. Federal Trade Commission, 177 U.S. App. D.C. 418, 543 F.2d 903 (1976)(followed)
  • In the Matter of Vogel, 382 A.2d 275, 279-80 (D.C. 1978) (per curiam)(followed)
  • Simmons v. State Bar of California, 70 Cal. 2d 361, 450 P.2d 291, 74 Cal. Rptr. 915 (1969) (per curiam)(followed)
  • Clark v. State Bar, 39 Cal. 2d 161, 246 P.2d 1 (1952) (per curiam)(followed)
  • Johnstone v. State Bar, 64 Cal. 2d 153, 410 P.2d 617, 49 Cal. Rptr. 97 (1966) (per curiam)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 32.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…