Monkey Business Leads To Proposed Disbarment

An attorney who had misappropriated funds from beneficiaries of the estate of Chico Marx should be disbarred, according to a recent unpublished recommendation of the California State Bar Court Review Department.

[The] misconduct arose out of his representation of Maxine Marx, a beneficiary of the estate of her late father, Chico Marx. Chico was a member of the Marx Brothers comedy team, and his estate held royalty rights to two Marx Brothers’ movies: “A Day at the Races” and “A Night at the Opera.”

Ezor began representing Maxine in 1999. He collected the movie royalties from producer Warner Brothers Entertainment, Inc. (Warner Brothers), deposited them in his [Client Trust Account], and then allocated them to Maxine and Chico’s other beneficiaries. Maxine died in September of 2009 at the age of 91.

The violations came to light after Maxine’s death

Brian and Kevin Culhane, Maxine’s sons, were the sole beneficiaries of her will and coexecutors of her estate. Shortly after her death, Brian and Kevin received a notice from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that she owed substantial back taxes on funds earned by Chico’s estate. Maxine’s sons were stunned; they were unaware of the royalty rights and believed their mother had died penniless. They located Ezor’s phone number in Maxine’s files, and Brian called him for an explanation of the unexpected taxes. Ezor told Brian about the royalty rights and that he was holding approximately $20,000 on Maxine’s behalf. For the next two years, Brian and Kevin sought information from Ezor about the royalties, his fees, and his retainer agreement with Maxine. Ezor either ignored the inquiries or provided incomplete, irrelevant, and insufficient responses. As a result, Brian ultimately reported Ezor to the State Bar.

The investigation revealed that he had collected nearly $200,000 for the client and deposited  the checks into his trust account.

He deducted fees without a written fee agreement and had no documentation of his disbursements (which the State Bar largely accepted as legitimate)

the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel (OCTC) accepted Ezor’s largely undocumented accounting of Maxine’s funds.

Key findings

The parties stipulated that, as of December 31, 2009, Ezor was required to maintain a balance of $26,001.48 in trust on behalf of Maxine’s estate, and failed to do so…

In December 2010 and December 2011, Ezor received additional yearly royalties, which he deposited into his CTA. Ezor and OCTC further stipulated that, after deducting his fee, he was required to maintain $41,399.48, as of February 12, 2012. Ezor admitted, and his bank account statements confirmed, that his CTA balance on February 12, 2012 was only $4,152.26. After the State Bar contacted Ezor in January 2012, he repaid the bulk of the money he owed to Maxine’s estate (in April 2012).

The court found intentional and dishonest misappropriation and rejected claims of judicial bias

Ezor argues the hearing judge was biased against him and denied him a fair trial. He asserts that he heard the State Bar’s attorney say “bullshit” during a February 2013 telephonic status conference when the hearing judge granted Ezor’s request for a trial continuance due to illness. Ezor alleges that the hearing judge responded, “yeah, I think it’s bullshit too, but I’m not a doctor.” He claims this proves the hearing judge was biased against him when he found Ezor’s testimony lacked credibility. He filed a motion to disqualify the hearing judge, which was denied; Ezor did not seek interlocutory review.

We reject Ezor’s claim of judicial bias and unfair trial as meritless.

Aggravation

Ezor claims that “[n]o harm has come about as a result of the delayed payment” because he repaid the estate funds with interest. His argument is contrary to the evidence. Ezor’s misconduct undoubtedly caused significant financial harm to Maxine, an infirm elderly client who could have used the substantial misappropriated monies. Instead, she relied on Social Security benefits. Ezor also caused harm to Maxine’s sons who worked with counsel for over two years in attempting to recover the money Ezor owed. We assign substantial aggravating weight to this factor.

The attorney also made false representations concerning the matter.

He was admitted in 1972 and has no prior discipline. (Mike Frisch)