Reinstatement Favored For Attorney Disbarred For 15 Years Of Misappropriations

A disbarred attorney who had misappropriated funds from two law firms over a 15 year period should be reinstated to practice, according to a recent recommendation of a Louisiana Hearing Committee.

The petitioner presented evidence from his psychiatrist that he had “made tremendous  growth in his life…”

From the 2007 disbarment order

Based on our review of the record in its totality, we find Dr. Scrignar’s conclusion that respondent’s actions were beyond his control is at odds with many  of the objective facts in this case.   For example, although Dr. Scrignar testified respondent was not motivated by greed, the testimony of respondent’s law partners uniformly established that it appeared respondent was living beyond his means and that his lifestyle was not consistent with the income he earned.   Additionally, the record reveals respondent’s methods of misappropriating funds evolved over time in order to allow him to avoid detection, suggesting his actions were not purely impulsive.   See Stoller, 04-2758 at p. 12, 902 So.2d at 988 (“Respondent’s repeated and deliberate actions over this lengthy period of time belie his contention that his misconduct was an aberration.”).   Finally, respondent himself admitted that he knew his actions were wrong when he testified, “[y]ou mull it over in your head so much that you rationalize any the moral implications of something you know is wrong.”

Considering all these facts, we are unable to find that respondent’s mental condition was the sole cause or even a principal or substantial cause of his misconduct.   While respondent may have used his “lack of fulfillment” as a moral justification for his misappropriation, the record does not support the conclusion that there is any significant causal nexus between any mental disability and the misconduct.   Accordingly, pursuant to ABA Standard 9.32(i), we give little weight to respondent’s alleged mental disability.

Reduced to their essentials, respondent’s actions demonstrate a fundamental lack of honesty which falls far below the standards expected of attorneys admitted to the bar of this state.   We are particularly disturbed by the fact that after being dismissed from Lowe Stein, respondent sought employment at Sessions Fishman without disclosing the reason for his discharge.   After the facts came to light, respondent represented to his law partners that “it would never happen again.”   Of course, this representation turned out to be a lie.

Notably, the hearing committee public member did not favor reinstatement.

It is notable, in my view, because public members may see things from the perspective of a potential future client.

Too often lawyers see things from the view that “there but for the grace of God go I.” Mike Frisch)