In re Rachal

Madlyn Ridley-Fisher and her son, Patrick Ridley, were the sole beneficiaries of the Virginia P. Ridley Trust (trust). Ridley-Fisher’s husband, Harold Fisher, was a creditor of the trust. Ridley-Fisher and Fisher (the Fishers), along with Ridley, retained attorney Anthony Rachal (defendant) to (1) remove Brenda Hopkins as trustee, (2) substitute a new trustee in Hopkins’s place, (3) compel the trustee to pay Fisher, and (4) compel the trustee to distribute the trust assets to Ridley-Fisher and Ridley. Rachal filed a complaint on behalf of Ridley and the Fishers. Pursuant to a consent order, the trial court allowed Hopkins to resign as trustee, appointed Brian Hopson as trustee in her place, and prohibited Hopson from making any distributions without court approval. Fisher, with his wife’s consent, asked Hopson to pay Fisher the amounts Fisher was allegedly owed. Hopson complied but later learned that Ridley and Rachal objected. Rachal told Fisher to return the money and threatened to seek a court order if Fisher did not. The Fishers refused and instructed Rachal not to seek a court order. Rachal sought a court order anyway. Disciplinary Counsel (plaintiff) filed a specification of charges asserting that Rachal violated Rule 1.7 of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct. That rule provided that an attorney could not represent clients with conflicting interests unless the attorney obtained the clients’ informed consent and the attorney reasonably believed that he could competently and diligently represent the clients. A hearing committee found that Rachal violated Rule 1.7. The matter subsequently came before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.