In re Daniel J. Slattery, Jr.

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed disciplinary charges against Daniel J. Slattery, Jr., arising from his unauthorized appropriation of funds belonging to a fraternal organization and his subsequent concealment of the conduct. The court held that attorney discipline under D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(b) and 8.4(c) does not require a criminal conviction and upheld the findings of misconduct. The opinion also rejected Slattery’s procedural due process and notice challenges.

Holdings

1. A disciplinary tribunal may determine by clear and convincing evidence that an attorney engaged in conduct constituting a criminal act for purposes of Rule 8.4(b), even when the attorney was never criminally charged or convicted; the tribunal disciplines the conduct, not a supposed violation of a criminal statute.
2. The disciplinary specification sufficiently notified Slattery that he was charged with theft and violations of Rules 8.4(b) and 8.4(c); treating the theft as conversion rather than theft by trick did not violate disciplinary rules or Fifth Amendment due process.
3. Slattery violated Rule 8.4(b) by intentionally appropriating Hibernian funds that he knew he was not personally entitled to use, conduct that constituted a criminal act and adversely reflected on his honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness.
4. Slattery violated Rule 8.4(c) by engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct through the unauthorized appropriation and concealment of the funds and through false and evasive deposition testimony.
5. Disbarment was required because Slattery deliberately misappropriated fiduciary funds and engaged in subsequent deceit, and imposing a sanction short of disbarment would foster inconsistent dispositions for comparable misconduct.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the Board on Professional Responsibility could determine that Slattery committed a criminal act for purposes of D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(b) without a criminal conviction.
2. Whether the disciplinary specification provided sufficient notice of the alleged misconduct and whether the alleged shift from theft by trick to theft by conversion violated applicable disciplinary rules or Fifth Amendment due process.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported findings that Slattery violated D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(b) and 8.4(c).
4. Whether disbarment was warranted rather than the three-year suspension recommended by the Board.

Disposition

other