In November 1990 Sharon Pratt Kelly was elected mayor of the District of Columbia. Mayor-elect Kelly named Vernon E. Jordan, Jr. to head up her transition team.
In September 1993 Margie A. Utley, Esq., who headed the D.C. Department of Human Rights and Minority Business Development, issued a no probable cause finding in Freedman v. Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld: my complaint that I had been terminated unlawfully by Akin Gump in October 1991.
In the mid-1990s Margie A. Utley was investigated for a Hatch Act violation. I do not know the outcome of that investigation.
Margie A. Utley was disbarred by the District of Columbia in 1997.
Fortunately, I still collect my $15,000 per year from the U.S. Social Security Administration based on the SSA's determination that I became disabled and not suitable for employment effective October 29, 1991, the date I was terminated by Vernon Jordan's law partner, Dennis M. Race, Esq. (Akin Gump), on the evidence -- affirmed as genuine and credible by Margie A. Utley -- that Dennis Race had determined in consultation with a psychiatrist that I was paranoid and potentially violent.
From 1994:
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. Office of Special Counsel has filed civil charges against two members of Mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly's Cabinet, accusing them of violating the federal Hatch Act by using their positions to help the mayor's reelection committee raise money.
The charges could result in the suspension or firing of Merrick T. Malone, director of the Department of Housing and Community Development, and Margie A. Utley, director of the Office of Human Rights and Minority Business Development. Both denied doing anything wrong.
Page 1
ReplyDeleteIn the Supreme Court of Georgia
OCT 2 6 1998
Decided:S98Y1597. IN THE MATTER OF MARGIE A. UTLEY PER CURIAM. Respondent Margie A. Utley, a member of the Georgia Bar since 1973, was disbarred in the District of Columbia on July 31, 1997.1 Because we agree with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals that Utley's misconduct amounted to deliberate misappropriation of estate funds, and because Utley's misconduct, if committed in Georgia, would violate numerous professional standards warranting disbarment, we order her disbarred from the practice of law in this state.Utley is in default, pursuant to Bar Rule 4-208.1 (b), for failure to file a timely rejection after being personally served with the Investigative Panel's Notice of Discipline seekingdisbarment. The underlying infractions involved protracted mishandling and misappropriation ofestate funds in the District of Columbia. The Investigative Panel proceeded under Standard 67 ofBar Rule 4-102 (d) (disbarment or suspension by another state is a ground for disbarment orsuspension in Georgia). The Investigative Panel found, based on the opinion and order of theDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals disbarring Utley, that Utley engaged in conduct which, ifcommitted in Georgia, violated numerous professional standards, all warranting disbarment.21 In the Matter of Utlev. 698 A2d 446 (D. C. App. 1997).2 The Investigative Panel charged that Utley's infractions if committed in Georgia wouldviolate Standards 3 (engaging in illegal professional conduct involving moral turpitude); 4
-----
Page 2
The opinion of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals disbarring Utley shows that during a six-year period in which Utley acted as conservator of an estate, she repeatedly took fees and commissions for herself from the estate before obtaining required court approval and waited twenty-one months to repay a mistakenly duplicated fee despite notification from an auditor and repeated court requests. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals found Utley's conduct amounted to deliberate misappropriation of estate funds.3We agree with the Investigative Panel that Utley 's misconduct, if committed in this state,would mandate disbarment.4 We also note there are substantial aggravating factors warranting theimposition of a severe sanction.5 Accordingly, Utley is disbarred from the practice of law in theState of Georgia. We remind Utley of her duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).Disbarred. All the Justices concur.false statements); 61 (failing to notify client of receipt of client funds and failing to promptlydeliver those funds); 63 (failing to maintain complete records and render appropriate accounts ofclient funds); and 65 (commingling personal and client funds) of Bar Rule 4-102 (d).3 The Court concluded that Utley's misconduct was deliberate, resulting from more thansimple negligence. As the District of Columbia Court of Appeals' precedent requires disbarmentfor misappropriation unless it appears the misconduct resulted from nothing more than simplenegligence, the Court disbarred Utley." See e.g.. In the Matter of Prince. 268 Ga. 880 (494 SE2d 337) (1998); In the Matter ofRoyal. 262 Ga. 717 (425 SE2d 650) (1993). See also, ABA Standards for Imposing LawyerDiscipline (1991), Standard 4.11 (disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowinglyconverts client property and causes injury or potential injury to a client).5 ABA Standard 9.22 (c) a pattern of misconduct; (e) bad faith obstruction of thedisciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinar)'agency: (g) refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct.