On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility.
Before Ferren and Farrell, Associate Judges, and Gallagher, Senior Judge.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam
PER CURIAM: In this reciprocal discipline proceeding, the Board on Professional Responsibility has recommended that respondent be disbarred retroactively to December 3, 1990. Bar Counsel supports the Board's recommendation, and respondent has filed no submission with the court. For the reasons stated by the Board in its Report and Recommendation, appended hereto, it is
ORDERED that Phillip J. Guenzer be and hereby is disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia effective, retroactively, to December 3, 1990.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
In the Matter of PHILLIP J. GUENZER, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Board on Professional Responsibility pursuant to an Order of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals suspending Respondent and directing the Board to determine whether reciprocal discipline should be imposed.
Respondent was disbarred by the Maryland Court of Appeals on December 3, 1990, for 7 client related matters and for his failure to file federal and state income tax returns over a 4 year period. The client related matters include one case in which Respondent neglected his client's personal injury case by allowing the statute of limitations to run without filing suit and by failing to associate himself with a Delaware attorney (Respondent was not a member of the Delaware bar). In 5 separate matters, Respondent collected excessive fees in Social Security Administration matters, either by charging fees directly to the clients which, separately or together with fees awarded by the Social Security Administration, exceeded the amount the Social Security Administration had approved or, in several cases, by withholding fees from Social Security payments to his clients without his clients' authorization or the approval of the Social security Administration. As a result of those cases, Respondent was prohibited from practicing before the Social Security Administration. In the seventh case, a worker's compensation matter, Respondent neglected the case by failing to live up to an agreement to protect a lien on his client's recovery asserted by the worker's compensation insurance carrier.
With respect to the tax matters, Respondent simply failed to file federal and state income tax returns for the years 1982 through 1986 and he failed to withhold and pay the required social security and ...