Blaming The Messenger
An attorney who had been disbarred in Maryland for misappropriation of client funds has received the identical sanction as reciprocal discipline by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. The court found no basis for any lesser penalty than that imposed by the Maryland court:
The record is clear that [the attorney] converted client funds to pay a civil judgment that had been rendered against him – a civil judgment that was related to his work as an attorney. Instead of filing a claim under his malpractice insurance policy or obtaining a loan, [he] instead decided to convert funds from his client trust account to pay the civil judgment against him. Thereafter, [his] personal assistant…obtained legal counsel to protect her interests. At [her] insistence, the converted funds were repaid and [the attorney] provided [her] a signed letter exonerating her from any wrongdoing.
However, [the attorney] did not discontinue using client funds to pay for his personal and business obligations, and in November 2008 [the personal assistant] quit her employment with [him] and shortly thereafter filed a complaint with the Maryland Grievance Commission. In its investigation, the Commission requested copies of all records associated with [his] client trust accounts, but [he] refused. [He] then offered a voluntary suspension as punishment for his misconduct, but that offer was rejected. Instead, [he] was given the option of voluntary disbarment. [He] accepted the voluntary disbarment.Shortly after his voluntary disbarment, [the attorney] published a letter to the community in the Cumberland, Maryland newspaper where he wrote, in part, “[w]ere it not for the letter writing of my former [sic] trusted and loyal office manager/Bookkeeper, who worked for me almost 20 years . . ., this matter would never have become an issue with the Maryland State Bar. Presently, I continue practice as a member in good standing in the West Virginia Bar.”
That last point caught the attention of the West Virginia court:
While [the attorney] professes to be remorseful for his unethical conduct, [his] letter to the Cumberland paper following his disbarment in Maryland suggests otherwise. As opposed to taking that opportunity to apologize to the community for his unethical conduct, [he] instead appeared to be blaming his long-time personal assistant for turning him into the Maryland lawyer disciplinary authorities. [He] fails to see that [the personal assistant], by reporting him to the Maryland disciplinary authorities, did more to protect [his] clients than [he] (who was converting client funds).
(Mike Frisch)