Disciplinary Case Summaries, 1118 COBJ, Vol. 47, No. 10 Pg. 86
| Position | Vol. 47, 10 [Page 86] |
Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge
No. 18PDJ056. People v. Clark. 9/13/2018. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved die parties' conditional admission of misconduct and suspended Danielle Clark (attorney registration number 44316) for three years, effective September 13, 2018.
Clark was charged in Pennsylvania with five criminal counts—including at least one felony charge—after she was arrested for possession of heroin with the intent to deliver. At the time of her arrest, Clark was six months pregnant with her co-defendant's child. She was aware of the co-defendant's drug dealing and admits engaging in activities for him, including carrying money. Clark had grown financially and emotionally dependent on him, however, and she came to fear him, as he grew more volatile and abusive after she became pregnant.
Clark was incarcerated and later was released to house arrest. She is currency in compliance with her probationary conditions. But she never reported her conviction to Colorado disciplinary authorities.
Through this conduct, Clark violated Colo. RPC 8.4(b) (a lawyer shall not commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects) and Colo. RPC 3.4(c) (a lawyer shall not knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal).
No. 18PDJ054. People v. Dart. 8/23/2018. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved the parties' conditional admission of misconduct in this reciprocal discipline matter and publicly censured Nahshon Joshua Dart (attorney registration number 41959), effective August 23, 2018.
On May31, 2018, the Supreme Court of Wyoming issued an order publicly censuring Dart, having determined that he violated Wyoming RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), Wyoming RPC 1.4 (lack of communication), and Wyoming RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). The Supreme Court of Wyoming found that Dart neglected to diligently pursue representation of a client in a defamation matter; failed to maintain adequate communication with the client; and failed to inform the client that the court had awarded attorney fees against her and had dismissed die case for noncompliance with discovery orders.
Through this conduct, Dart engaged in conduct constituting...
To continue reading
Request your trial