Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
In Re Dreier
Citations: 651 A.2d 312; 1994 D.C. App. LEXIS 241; 1994 WL 720023Docket: 93-BG-366
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals; December 29, 1994; District Of Columbia; State Supreme Court
Harry Dreier, an attorney licensed in New Jersey and the District of Columbia, was publicly reprimanded by the Supreme Court of New Jersey for failing to diligently represent a client, communicate effectively, and cooperate with disciplinary authorities. The reprimand stemmed from Dreier's failure to file a transfer tax return for a client, Kimberly M. Epstein, and his lack of response to her inquiries as well as to communications from an investigator regarding her grievance. The New Jersey Supreme Court ordered Dreier to practice under supervision. The Board of Professional Responsibility recommended reciprocal discipline in the District of Columbia in the form of a public censure, consistent with the reprimand in New Jersey. The relevant rules dictate that identical discipline should be imposed unless certain exceptions apply, which were not relevant in this case. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals accepted the Board's recommendation and publicly censured Dreier, noting that he was already under supervision in New Jersey and that additional probation in D.C. was unnecessary. The decision referenced a detailed report outlining Dreier's failure to file the tax return, his lack of communication with Epstein, and his non-responsiveness to inquiries from both Epstein and her new attorney, as well as the disciplinary investigator. Respondent admitted to the allegations in a formal complaint in New Jersey, citing emotional instability as a mitigating factor. New Jersey authorities found him guilty of multiple disciplinary violations, including lack of diligence, failure to communicate with a client, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities. Specific violations included neglect (DR 6-101(A)(3)), failure to deliver client property (DR 9-103(B)(4)), and conduct seriously interfering with the administration of justice (Rule 8.4). He had two prior public reprimands, one in 1983 for misrepresenting a lawsuit's status and another in 1990 for lack of diligence and communication failures regarding a trust. Although a more severe sanction was considered due to these prior reprimands, a public reprimand was ultimately recommended because of mitigating circumstances. An indefinite proctorship was also established, requiring supervision until Respondent could practice competently alone. Respondent did not contest the imposition of similar discipline, as is his responsibility under D.C.App. R. XI. 11(c). Bar Counsel noted that similar conduct in D.C. might warrant a harsher penalty but supported reciprocal discipline, advocating for a public censure instead of a reprimand, as it aligns with the disciplinary actions taken by New Jersey. The recommendation to the Court is for public censure, with no probation imposed, as Respondent is already practicing under supervision in New Jersey. All members of the Board concurred with this recommendation, except Ms. Christianson.