In re Kenneth A. Martin

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed disciplinary charges against attorney Kenneth A. Martin arising from fee arrangements and the handling of disputed client funds. The court held that Martin charged an unreasonable fee, violated rules governing client property and other professional conduct, and imposed an eighteen-month suspension conditioned on disgorgement of funds awarded to the client by the Attorney-Client Arbitration Board.

Holdings

1. The Florida litigation against Cannon, the New York collection action, and the federal forfeiture action concerning the same funds constituted a single matter for purposes of evaluating Martin's fee.
2. Martin violated D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(a) because the combined contingency and hourly fees were unreasonable; the fee gave Martin well over a 50% interest in the outcome and, including other counsel's fees, consumed approximately 67% of ESI's recovery.
3. An attorney who learns that a client disputes a fee must keep the disputed funds separate in an account complying with Rule 1.15(a); commingling disputed funds with the attorney's own funds violates Rules 1.15(a) and (c).
4. If a client disputes an attorney's fee with reasonable promptness after the attorney has withdrawn the fee from the client trust account, the attorney must place the disputed amount in a separate account under Rules 1.15(a) and (c).
5. Martin violated Rule 1.16(d) by unreasonably withholding the ACAB award through repeated, insubstantial challenges and appeals, thereby delaying ESI's receipt of money to which it was entitled.
6. Martin violated Rule 8.4(c) by falsely claiming that the D.C. Bar Ethics Hotline advised him not to return disputed funds to a separate trust account.
7. An attorney violates Rule 8.4(d) by entering into a settlement agreement requiring a client to withdraw a disciplinary complaint or refrain from pursuing one.
8. An eighteen-month suspension from the practice of law, conditioned on disgorgement of the unpaid portion of the ACAB award with applicable interest, was appropriate.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Martin's representation of ESI involved one matter or multiple matters for purposes of determining the reasonableness of his fee.
2. Whether Martin's combined contingency and hourly fees were unreasonable under D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(a).
3. Whether Martin violated Rules 1.15(a) and (c) by transferring disputed client funds to his operating account and failing to place them in a separate account.
4. Whether Martin violated Rule 1.16(d) by failing to promptly return the fee amount awarded to ESI through mandatory fee arbitration.
5. Whether Martin violated Rule 8.4(c) by falsely claiming that the D.C. Bar Ethics Hotline advised him to retain disputed funds in his operating account.
6. Whether Martin violated Rule 8.4(d) by conditioning settlement on ESI's withdrawal of its bar complaint.
7. What sanction and reinstatement conditions were appropriate.

Disposition

other