In re Coningford

Summary

The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed disciplinary proceedings against William G. Coningford for commingling and converting client funds, failing to make required distributions, and engaging in misrepresentation. Although the Supreme Court Disciplinary Board recommended a nine-month suspension, the court held that intentional misappropriation warranted disbarment absent unique and compelling mitigating circumstances. The court therefore disbarred Coningford effective immediately.

Holdings

1. An attorney violates Article V, Rule 1.15(a) by failing to maintain client or third-party funds in accounts separate from the attorney's own property.
2. An attorney violates Article V, Rule 1.15(b) by failing to promptly deliver funds to the person entitled to receive them and by failing to provide a prompt, full accounting upon request.
3. Intentional conversion of client funds constitutes professional misconduct under Article V, Rule 8.4(c), including conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
4. The presumptive sanction for intentional misappropriation of client funds is disbarment, and a lesser sanction is appropriate only upon unique and compelling mitigating circumstances.

Questions Presented

1. What sanction is appropriate when an attorney intentionally commingles and converts client or third-party funds in violation of the professional-conduct rules?
2. Whether the absence of criminal charges or a prior disciplinary history warranted a sanction less severe than disbarment.
3. Whether the Supreme Court should adopt the Disciplinary Board's recommendation of a nine-month suspension subject to restitution and trust-account supervision.

Disposition

other