In re Henry J. Uscinski

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals declined to impose disbarment as greater reciprocal discipline on Henry J. Uscinski, concluding that the record did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that his conduct constituted intentional misappropriation of client funds under District of Columbia law. The court instead imposed the identical five-year suspension imposed by the New York court. It also remanded the separate proceeding concerning Uscinski's tax-evasion conviction for a Hearing Committee determination of whether the conviction involved moral turpitude.

Holdings

1. A respondent who did not contest the proposed greater reciprocal discipline before the Board is not barred from challenging the imposition of greater discipline in the Court of Appeals.
2. The Board did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that Uscinski's conduct constituted intentional misappropriation under District of Columbia law; therefore, the greater reciprocal sanction of disbarment was unwarranted.
3. The tax-evasion proceeding should not be dismissed as moot; it must be remanded to the Board with instructions to refer the matter to a Hearing Committee to determine whether the conviction involved moral turpitude.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Uscinski waived his right to challenge the Board's recommendation of greater reciprocal discipline by failing to contest the recommendation before the Board.
2. Whether the record established by clear and convincing evidence that the conduct characterized by the New York Court as an improper transfer of client funds constituted intentional misappropriation under District of Columbia law and warranted per se disbarment.
3. Whether the disciplinary proceeding arising from Uscinski's tax-evasion conviction should be dismissed as moot or remanded for a determination whether the conviction involved moral turpitude.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded