In this Article, I examine the dishonest billing practices alleged to have occurred and the analysis of the dishonesty by the Hearing Committee and the court. I offer a critique of the investigation of the case, the findings of fact and the legal standards applied. I compare this billing fraud case to the leading case on misappropriation of client funds in the District of Columbia. I argue that the decision-makers (Hearing Committee, Board on Professional Responsibility, and court of appeals) have gone to great lengths to avoid addressing the very grave dishonesty that led to this disciplinary matter. I speculate as to some possible reasons for this deference. Finally, I urge that the disciplinary standard on lawyer dishonesty should be interpreted and enforced even-handedly, especially when the purpose of the dishonesty is to take client funds to which the lawyer or the firm is not entitled.
Lisa G. Lerman, A Double Standard for Lawyer Dishonesty: Billing Fraud Versus Misappropriation, 34 HOFSTRA L. REV. 847 (2006).