#Perlesta

[onenicebugperday]

@loquaciousky submitted: I kept missing the submission windows, but I met this ABSOLUTELY EENSY (<1cm long, antennae included) lil friend on my car back in June. Loving their fashionable coattails and sporty color trim. Southeastern Pennsylvania, USA.

Tiny.....precious. This sweet babe is a stonefly! Probably in the genus Perlesta, the summer stones.

[legofemme]

can i get assigned more bug

Always and forever . I give you this darling little stonefly! I couldnt find a spec ID for this fellow, but i know hes from genus Perlesta

[ericfruits]

A Sleeper Case Of Huge Significance

Tuesday, May 14, 2019

A District of Columbia Hearing Committee has recommended approval of a consent disposition of a partially-stayed six month suspension for negligent misappropriation.

The evidence supports Respondent’s admission that he violated Rule 1.15(a) in that the stipulated facts describe that Respondent provided settlement checks to two clients whose funds had not been deposited in his bank account, and then withdrew his own fees in that matter, resulting in the withdrawal of funds belonging to another client

The committee noted that the proposed sanction is more lenient than the Court of Appeals has ever imposed for comparable misconduct

The Court has routinely imposed six-month suspensions even for isolated instances of negligent misappropriation. See In re Davenport, 794 A.2d 602, 603 (D.C. 2002) (“When the Board finds that an attorney has commingled and negligently misappropriated funds, we have uniformly imposed a suspension for a period of no less than six months.”); see also, e.g., In re Frank, 881 A.2d 1099, 1100 (D.C. 2005) (per curiam) (six-month suspension for negligent misappropriation); In re Katz, 801 A.2d 982, 982 (D.C. 2002) (per curiam) (providing that a six-month suspension was appropriate before taking into account disability mitigation under In re Kersey, which resulted in a stayed suspension); In re Evans, 578 A.2d 1141, 1143 (D.C. 1990) (per curiam) (six-month suspension for negligent misappropriation). Thus, a partially stayed six-month suspension falls slightly below the sanction Respondent would likely receive in a contested case. However, because a strict comparability analysis does not apply in negotiated discipline cases, and because there are mitigating factors, but no aggravating factors, the Hearing Committee concludes that the sanction is not “unduly” lenient.

Having litigated the six-month floor in similar circumstances, and while I am an advocate for the wider use of consent discipline, I must confess some concern that Disciplinary Counsel did not insist on a straight up six-month suspension here. 

Can Disciplinary Counsel now negotiate for a lesser sanction than disbarment for intentional or reckless misappropriation? 

The report in In re Perlesta A. Hollingsworth, Jr. can be accessed here. (Mike Frisch)

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_profession/2019/05/a-district-of-columbia-hearing-committee-has-recommended-approval-of-a-consent-disposition-of-a-partially-stayed-six-month-su.html

Bar Discipline & Process | Permalink

http://bit.ly/2YvUEzo