Full Opinion

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 26-BG-0259 IN RE LAURENCE L. SOCCI, RESPONDENT. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 241318) On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility Ad Hoc Hearing Committee Approving Amended Petition for Negotiated Discipline (BDN: 25-ND-003; DDN: 2024-D145) (Decided October 1, 2026) Before DEAHL and HOWARD, Associate Judges, and THOMPSON, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM: This decision is nonprecedential. Please refer to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(d), governing the appropriate citation of this opinion. In this disciplinary matter, the Hearing Committee recommends approval of the parties’ amended petition for negotiated discipline. Respondent Laurence L. Socci has acknowledged that, in connection with representing a client seeking to evict a tenant, he (1) failed to represent his client diligently and act with reasonable promptness in representing his client; (2) failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and promptly comply with reasonable 2 requests for information and explain the matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit his client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; and (3) commingled personal funds with entrusted funds and failed to maintain complete financial records. As a result, respondent admits that he violated D.C. R. Pro. Conduct 1.3(a) & (c), 1.4(a)-(b), and 1.15(a). The proposed discipline consists of a stayed sixty-day suspension in favor of one year of probation with conditions. Having reviewed the Committee’s recommendation 1 in accordance with our procedures in these cases, see D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12.1(d), and considered the parties’ statement of mutual understanding that clarifies one of the conditions of probation, we agree that this case is appropriate for negotiated discipline and “the agreed-upon sanction is justified,” In re Mensah, 262 A.3d 1100, 1104 (D.C. 2021) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted), in light of reasonably analogous precedents. See, e.g., In re Botty-Van Den Bruele, 277 A.3d 1269 (D.C. 2022) (per curiam); In re Salgado, 207 A.3d 168 (D.C. 2019) (per curiam); In re Cole, 967 A.2d 1264 (D.C. 2009); In re Iglehart, 759 A.2d 203 (D.C. 2000) (per curiam); see also In re Teitelbaum, 303 A.3d 52, 56 (D.C. 2023) (providing that a negotiated discipline petition “may generally omit to charge a violation if, after reasonable factual investigation, there is a substantial risk that [the Office of Disciplinary Counsel] 1 We grant the consent motion to file under seal the lodged confidential appendix to the Committee’s Report and Recommendation. 3 would not be able to establish the violation by clear and convincing evidence”). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that respondent Laurence L. Socci is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for sixty days, fully stayed, and placed on one year of probation with the following conditions: (a) Respondent shall refund the client $900 by making monthly payments of $100 no later than the 15th of each month. Respondent’s obligation to make the monthly payments will begin 30 days after the date of this opinion. Respondent must provide written notice of each payment to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. (b) Respondent shall meet with Dan Mills, Manager of the Practice Management Advisory Service of the District of Columbia Bar. Respondent must execute a waiver allowing Mr. Mills and/or the assigned practice monitor to communicate directly with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel regarding his compliance. Mr. Mills or the assigned practice monitor will conduct a full assessment of respondent’s practices, including but not limited to reviewing financial records, client files, engagement letters, and his supervision and training of staff. Mr. Mills or the assigned practice monitor shall take steps to ensure that respondent is aware of and has taken steps to 4 comply with his obligations under Rules 1.3, 1.4, and 1.15(a), including maintaining complete records relating to client funds, and that respondent complies with all of the practice monitor’s recommendations. (c) During the probationary period, respondent shall inform all clients, in writing, that he is serving a term of probation. If respondent fails to comply with the terms of his probation, his probation may be revoked and he may be required to serve the 60-day suspension previously stayed herein, consecutively with any other discipline or suspension that may be imposed in the event of a finding that he engaged in further misconduct. Respondent must be in full compliance with the practice monitor’s requirements for a period of twelve consecutive months. After the practice monitor determines that respondent has been in full compliance for twelve consecutive months, respondent must sign an acknowledgement that he is in compliance with the practice monitor’s requirements and file the signed acknowledgement with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. This must be accomplished no later than two years after the date of this opinion. So ordered.