Carolyn Mardis

DCCA Opinion (December 14, 2017)

Summary: In re Carolyn Mardis. Bar No. 974417. December 14, 2017. The D.C. Court of Appeals disbarred Mardis in connection with two separate matters consolidated for resolution. Mardis was charged with misconduct arising out of two separate matters. In the first matter, Mardis conspired with others in a fraudulent scheme to unlawfully obtain title to a property that was subject to a tax sale. She then took the rightful homeowner’s personal property and when the rightful owner contacted her to arrange the return of his property, she provided the owner with a false name, and then demanded that he pay to secure the property’s return. She then consigned some of the property to local auction houses (misrepresenting that she had good title). She made misrepresentations to her law firm to cover up her misconduct. In litigation filed by the owner, she testified falsely under oath. In the second matter, Mardis failed to provide her client with a writing explaining the basis of her fee or the scope of the representation, and commingled an advance fee in her operating account, without her client’s consent.

Board Report and Orders (July 13, 2017)

Summary: The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends the D.C. Court of Appeals disbar Mardis because she engaged in theft and fraud. Mardis was charged with misconduct arising out of two separate matters. In the first matter, Mardis conspired with others in a fraudulent scheme to unlawfully obtain title to a property that was subject to a tax sale. She then took the rightful homeowner’s personal property and when the rightful owner contacted her to arrange the return of his property, she provided the owner with a false name, and then demanded that he pay to secure the property’s return. She then consigned some of the property to local auction houses (misrepresenting that she had good title). She made misrepresentations to her law firm to cover up her misconduct. In litigation filed by the owner, she testified falsely under oath. In the second matter, Mardis failed to provide her client with a writing explaining the basis of her fee or the scope of the representation, and commingled an advance fee in her operating account, without her client’s consent. Count I: Rules 1.7(b)(4), 3.3(a), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d)); Count II: Rules 1.5(b) and 1.15(a).

Hearing Committee Report (February 15, 2017)

Summary: Not yet available.