Mayor Adrian Fenty’s nominee to a critical D.C. appeals board was recently disbarred in Maryland for his role in a fraudulent real estate scheme and will not be sworn in.
Will Purcell’s nomination to the Contract Appeals Board, the panel charged with hearing and resolving contractual disputes, was approved by the D.C. Council on July 14. A week later, the Maryland Court of Appeals ordered Purcell and a second lawyer, Renard Johnson, disbarred for their participation in an equity-stripping scam.
On July 31, Purcell contributed $500 to Fenty’s 2010 campaign, according to campaign finance records.
But on Wednesday, Office of Boards and Commissions director Tracy Sandler informed Purcell in writing that he “will no longer meet the statutory requirements and as such we will not be swearing you in as a member,” The Examiner has learned. Purcell’s wife, Gennet Purcell, is the deputy commissioner for the D.C. Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking — the agency that regulates the District’s mortgage industry.
Fenty spokeswoman Mafara Hobson did not respond to numerous requests for comment Wednesday. Neither did Will Purcell.
The Maryland court ruled that Purcell conducted a closing as an independent contractor with Silver Spring-based Apple Title International, “where he utilized a false occupancy statement” and signed a settlement form “that misrepresented the manner in which settlement funds … would be distributed” to the sellers.
“Disbarment is warranted because of the dishonest and fraudulent nature of these violations,” the court wrote.
Purcell also faces disbarment in D.C. through the reciprocal discipline process.
His nomination was first introduced by Fenty on March 13. Ward 3 Councilwoman Mary Cheh said Wednesday that Purcell did not advise the government operations committee, which she chairs, about his legal troubles.
“Mr. Purcell must have known that he faced a serious matter with the bar in Maryland, and no one ever disclosed this,” Cheh said. “It just reminds us we have to exercise the most heightened review, especially among people who want to serve in quasi-judicial positions.”
The victims in the Purcell case sought to refinance their Waldorf home in early 2005 to avoid foreclosure, according to court records. The couple ultimately agreed to sell their home to a third party and then pay monthly rent to remain in the residence.
But the couple received only $21,286 of the $68,203 in cash they were due at settlement. The remainder was kicked back to the mortgage broker, with the help of documents Purcell signed.
