Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-BG-554 IN RE PAUL S. HAAR, RESPONDENT. A Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 368605) On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility (BDN-2012-D392; BDN-2013-D429) (Argued September 23, 2020 Decided February 24, 2022) Daniel S. Schumack, with whom McGavock D. Reed Jr. was on the brief, for Respondent. Jennifer Lyman, Special Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, with whom Hamilton P. Fox III, Disciplinary Counsel, and Myles Lynk, Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, were on the brief, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Before EASTERLY and MCLEESE, Associate Judges, and RUIZ, Senior Judge. EASTERLY, Associate Judge: The Office of Disciplinary Counsel charged immigration attorney Paul S. Haar with misappropriation and commingling of pre- paid flat fees in two separate cases involving two different clients, in violation of D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(e) as clarified in In re Mance, 980 A.2d 1196 (D.C. 2 2009) (requiring attorneys to deposit such in trust) 1; see also D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(e). Departing from the Hearing Committee’s recommendation, the Board of Professional Responsibility concluded that (1) there was no misconduct in the first case, wherein Mr. Haar failed to move into trust a partially unearned flat fee he had received before Mance was decided, and (2) Mr. Haar was merely negligent in the second case, when he failed to deposit or subsequently move into trust a partially unearned flat fee he received after Mance was decided. The Board recommended that Mr. Haar be suspended for seven months, followed by a one-year period of probation, during which he was to submit to an evaluation by the D.C. Bar’s Practice Management Advisory Services (PMAS), and complete up to ten hours of CLE recommended by PMAS at its sole discretion. We agree with the Board that Mr. Haar should only be sanctioned for misappropriation and commingling in one of the two charged cases, and impose the Board’s recommended sanction. 1 When this court decided Mance this rule was denominated Rule 1.15(d). To avoid confusion, we refer to the past and current iterations of the rule as Rule 1.15(e) throughout this opinion. 3 I. Factual and Procedural History A. Mr. Haar’s Practice and the Legal Landscape Before the Charged Misconduct Mr. Haar was admitted to practice law in the District of Columbia in 1983. A decade later, he founded the solo immigration practice he runs today, where he primarily accepts modest flat fees. Mr. Haar testified, and Disciplinary Counsel does not dispute, that his fees tend to be small because many of his cases take days or even hours from start to finish, and because many of his clients are low-income and pay him what they can afford in …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals