“Thieving Spouse” Defense Rejected; Attorney Disbarred

The Missouri Supreme Court recently disbarred an attorney who had misappropriated funds.

From the court’s summary of its opinion

This case involves questions of whether an attorney committed misconduct by misappropriating client funds, among other allegations, and, if so, what discipline is appropriate. In a decision written by Judge Paul C. Wilson, the Supreme Court of Missouri disbars the attorney. All seven judges agree the attorney committed misconduct. The evidence shows the attorney misappropriated $93,000 belonging to his clients and their medical creditors, and even if he relied on his then-wife to manage his accounts, it was his duty alone to ensure compliance with the rules of professional conduct. He failed to maintain his client records and accounts as required by the rules, and this failure creates an inference that he knew what the records would have shown. Four judges agree the attorney should be disbarred. The baseline discipline for misappropriation is disbarment. There are no compelling mitigating circumstances here, and there are extensive aggravating circumstances.

 His explanation

At a hearing before a regional disciplinary hearing panel, Farris testified his then-wife managed his office’s administrative, financial and accounting matters and accused her of stealing his clients’ funds from his trust account without his knowledge. He testified that he ultimately reported her conduct to the authorities and that she is being prosecuted. Ultimately, the disciplinary hearing panel found that Farris committed numerous instances of misconduct in violation of the rules of professional responsibility – including misappropriation of client funds – and recommended that Farris be suspended indefinitely with no leave to apply for reinstatement for six months.

The court agreed with disciplinary counsel that disbarment was the appropriate sanction.

From the opinion

Farris claims that his then-wife “took over and controlled the administrative, financial and accounting matters of the office.” Resp. Br. at 8. He testified to the DHP that he “shouldn’t have trusted a spouse who turned out to be a thief,” that he made a “mistake of trusting a thieving spouse,” and that this is merely a “case of an attorney who was taken advantage of by his thieving spouse that caused this problem.” The evidence tells a different story.

The evidence shows it was Farris, not his wife, who told Client A and Client B that he would hold some of their settlement proceeds in trust and use it to pay their medical providers. The evidence shows it was Farris, not his wife, who told these clients he would try to negotiate discounts and distribute any resulting savings to his clients.

The Court finds that Farris knew he had undertaken these obligations and knew he failed to honor them. The evidence also shows that Farris knew Client A was seeking information from him, not his wife, and he knew his responses were neither timely nor truthful. Farris knew the obligation to respond promptly and truthfully to the OCDC belonged to him, not his wife, and Farris knew he failed to fulfill that obligation as well. Finally, Farris knew that he – not his wife – had a duty under the Rules to maintain each client’s file for the requisite period and a duty to maintain “complete records” of his trust account showing the date, amount, source and explanation for each deposit or withdrawal. Farris knew he failed to do so.

Farris authorized his then-wife to make transfers from his trust account to his office operating account but now claims that he did not know what transfers she made or whether they were proper. Farris authorized his then-wife to pay his personal and professional expenses from his operating account but now claims that he did not know she was spending commingled client funds when she did so. The Court finds that Farris was not ignorant of these transactions or the fact that they were improper.

A dissent would impose a suspension of at least two years and restitution.

The Crime Scene reported on criminal charges against the ex-wife.

He also is the host of a radio show. (Mike Frisch)