Eduardo Justo de Pomar

DCCA Opinion (April 28, 2022)

Summary: The D.C. Court of Appeals accepted Justo de Pomar’s petition for negotiated discipline and suspended him for nine months with 120 days stayed on the condition that he not engage in any misconduct in this or any other jurisdiction within a year from his reinstatement for multiple D.C. and Virginia rule violations. Justo de Pomar acknowledged that during his representation of these clients he failed to reasonably inform them about the status of a matter, to keep and preserve complete records of trust funds, to keep advance fees in a trust account, to withdraw from representation when a physical or mental condition materially impaired his ability to represent his client, and to surrender papers. He also charged an unreasonable fee. As a result of his actions, Justo de Pomar violated D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(a) and (b); 1.3(a), (b)(1), and (b)(2); 1.4(b); 1.5(a) and (b); 1.15(a), (b), and (e); 1.16(d); 3.3(a); and 8.1(a).

Board Report and Orders (February 4, 2022)

Summary: In re Eduardo Justo de Pomar. Bar No. 492823. February 3, 2022. The Board on Professional Responsibility recommended that the D.C. Court of Appeals accept Justo de Pomar’s petition for negotiated discipline and suspend him for nine months with 120 days stayed on the condition that he not engage in any misconduct in this or any other jurisdiction within a year from his reinstatement for multiple D.C. and Virginia rule violations. This matter involves Justo de Pomar’s extensive misconduct while representing clients in two immigration matters. His conduct violated D.C. Rules 1.1(a) (lack of competence), 1.1(b) (skill and care), 1.3(a) (diligence and zeal), 1.3(b)(1) (intentional failure to seek client’s lawful objectives), 1.3(b)(2) (intentional prejudice or damage to client), 1.4(b) (failure to explain matter to client), 1.5(b) (failure to provide written retainer agreement), 1.15(a) and (e) (commingling), 1.15(b) (failure to maintain a trust account), 3.3(a)(1) (knowing false statement to a tribunal), and 8.1(a) (knowing false statement to Disciplinary Counsel).

Hearing Committee Report (May 11, 2021)

Summary: In re Eduardo Justo de Pomar. Bar No. 492823. May 11, 2021. The Board on Professional Responsibility’s Ad Hoc Hearing Committee recommended that the D.C. Court of Appeals accept Justo de Pomar’s petition for negotiated discipline and suspend him for nine months, with 120 days stayed on the condition that he shall not engage in any misconduct in this or any other jurisdiction within a year from his reinstatement for multiple D.C. and Virginia rule violations.

Petition for Negotiated Discipline (August 27, 2020)