Reinstatement Proposed Over A Dissent
The Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board recommends that reinstatement be granted to an attorney disbarred in 2007 for diverting fees from two law firms into his own pockets.
While employed at two law firms in New Orleans, Mr. Bernstein directly billed clients for work he actually performed, but thereafter deposited the funds received into his own personal checking account. Although neither firm conducted a “comprehensive audit,” Mr. Bernstein’s misappropriations apparently totaled approximately $32,000.
From the hearing board on his mental health issues
Dr. Douglas William Greve has treated Mr. Bernstein since 2007. Pg. 35. He has been treating him for depression and has prescribed him medication. Pg. 35. Dr. Greve’s treatment and prognosis of Mr. Bernstein is summarized in [Petitioner’s] Exhibit P-07. Dr. Greve testified that Mr. Bernstein’s mental health currently is excellent. He testified that Mr. Bernstein was “a real mess” in 2007, but after about three years he began to settle down, function better, and feel better. Pg. 36. It is Dr. Greve’s opinion that Mr. Bernstein has grown into a new person and that in his professional opinion any mental health issues prior to 2007 that may have caused his past misconduct have been adequately dealt with. It is also his opinion that Mr. Bernstein’s depression and anxiety are in remission. He testified that there is no mental health issue that would impair Mr. Bernstein’s ability to be a competent lawyer. Pg. 38. Dr. Greve further testified that even though he did not know of Mr. Bernstein’s history of shoplifting and theft at an early age, it is stressors that destabilize Mr. Bernstein, and as long as he has an external structure to support him, he is okay. Pg. 46. Dr. Greve has prescribed Mr. Bernstein medication and recommends that he stay on that medication indefinitely. Pg. 47. Dr. Greve testified that although he cannot guarantee that Mr. Bernstein will not go back to his old ways if stressed, he did say that Mr. Bernstein “has made tremendous growth in his life, caring for his children, his practice, taking care of things. And he’s shown a lot of inner strength that he did not have before.” Pg. 51- 52. Dr. Greve also testified that he does not believe the restrictions on Mr. Bernstein’s check writing authority or in issuing bills (imposed by the CPA board) are necessary any longer because he has the inner controls to deal with it. Pg. 55. It is his opinion that Mr. Bernstein can handle the day-to-day stressors, as he is a stable person and would even be alright as a solo practitioner.
A hearing board member had dissented
Evidence presented at the hearing showed that in 2009, subsequent to his disbarment, the Respondent’s CPA license was revoked for a period of seven years, with conditions, by the State Board of Certified Public Accountants of Louisiana. The revocation, while deferred, states that, “Respondent David Bernstein will not have any responsibility for billing or collections and will not have any check signing authority within his current employer’s firm and future employers.
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel objected to readmission. The Board here found that the petitioner had satisfied the criteria for reinstatement.
A board member dissented
What concerns me in this petition is the seriousness and longevity of actions that led to Mr. Bernstein’s disbarment. The court cited his “fundamental lack of honesty which falls far below the standards expected of attorneys admitted to the bar of this state.” 10 The word fundamental means it is basic and natural to, in this case, the character of an individual. It further concerns me that the “deceit and dishonesty evidenced by the record” occurred over an extensive period of time. Nothing presented in this petition indicated that the Petitioner had amended his ways and changed his character. The only inference drawn from the information provided was that given a controlled environment, he did not revert to past conduct involving “fraud, dishonesty, deceit and misrepresentation.” If these sanctions and circumstances are changed, there is no “checks and balance” system in place to ensure compliance.
(Mike Frisch)