Samuel Bailey

DCCA Opinion (October 13, 2022)

Summary: In re Samuel Bailey Jr. Bar No. 384974. October 13, 2022. The D.C. Court of Appeals suspended Bailey for one year, with his reinstatement conditioned on a showing of fitness. This matter is in connection with his representation of a client in a civil rights case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and a discrimination claim before the D.C. Office of Human Rights (OHR). Bailey failed to communicate and respond to the client’s numerous requests for information about the status of his OHR claim, explain the scope of his legal services, and explain the legal fees and costs that the client would incur. In addition, Bailey charged the client an unreasonable fee; failed to get the client’s informed consent concerning the attorney’s fee-sharing arrangement or the division of responsibility; and engaged in dishonesty in his drafting and explanation of his Representation Agreement and in his billing for false, erroneous, and duplicative entries. Bailey also engaged in conduct that seriously interfered with the administration of justice by failing to completely respond to Disciplinary Counsel’s inquiries. (Rules 1.4(a), 1.4(b), 1.5(a), 1.5(e), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).)

DCCA Order (November 22, 2021)

Summary: In re Samuel Bailey, Jr. Bar No. 384974. November 22, 2021. Bailey was suspended on an interim basis pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g), pending final action on the Board on Professional Responsibility’s July 9, 2021, recommendation of a one year suspension.

Board Report and Orders (July 9, 2021)

Summary: In re Samuel Bailey Jr. Bar No. 384974. July 9, 2021. The Board on Professional Responsibility recommended that the D.C. Court of Appeals suspend Bailey for one year in connection with his representation of a client in a civil rights case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and a discrimination claim before the D.C. Office of Human Rights (OHR). Bailey failed to communicate and respond to the client's numerous requests for information about the status of his OHR claim, failed to explain the scope of his legal services, and failed to explain the legal fees and costs that the client would incur. In addition, Bailey charged the client an unreasonable fee; did not get the client's informed consent concerning the attorney's fee-sharing arrangement or the division of responsibility, and engaged in dishonesty in his drafting and explanation of his representation agreement and in his billing for false, erroneous, and duplicative entries. (Rules 1.4(a), 1.4(b), 1.5(a), 1.5(e), and 840).

Hearing Committee Report (May 29, 2020)

Summary: Not yet available.