Defense “Defies The Most Basic Principles Of Attorney Professional Responsibility”

The California State Bar Court Review Department found that a recommendation of disbarment was “abundantly supported” and in turn proposed that sanction for misappropriation of entrusted funds.

The defense

At the State Bar Court trial and before us, Anderson has offered as his sole defense that he was not the managing partner of the firm when the funds were misused and that he was only following the directives of the attorney who was the managing partner. He also points to mitigating factors, and states that his only misconduct was in not reporting to the State Bar earlier the loss of the clients’ funds, for which he should receive an unspecified sanction.

But

Anderson’s defense, rejected by the hearing judge, is unavailing because it is at odds with his actual role in the law firm, with the many personal acts he took to misappropriate the clients’ trust funds, and with his admissions that he was responsible for the safety and security of the clients’ trust funds, that he knew of the loss of the clients’ funds at the time of his acts, and he concealed those losses from the clients. His defense also defies the most basic principles of attorney professional responsibility.

 The resume

Anderson has no record of prior discipline. He graduated from the University of California Los Angeles Law School and was editor-in-chief of its Law Review. Admitted to practice in California at the end of 1967, he had seven years of experience as an associate in a large multinational law firm engaged in business transactional law, followed by service as the managing partner of a small firm which had a significant land development client in the Middle East and grew into a 27-lawyer multinational firm. Seeking less travel, he left that firm to practice business transactional law as a partner in two successive San Francisco law firms.

In 1998, Anderson joined the firm of Lanahan and Reilly in Santa Rosa, and became an equity partner in either 2001 or 2002. He served as managing partner in 2006 and 2007. In 2010, the firm was renamed Lanahan, Steever and Anderson, LLP. While at this firm, Anderson continued to do business transactional law.

The managing firm partner in the period 2009 through February 2012 was Scott Steever, but Anderson had signature authority on different firm and client trust bank accounts (CTA) and used that authority from about November 2009. Between March and December 2012, Anderson assumed the role of managing partner due to Steever’s illness.

 The review board found that the established misconduct seriously harmed the client victims.

Considering that it was repeated, occurring more than 50 times in these two matters over a two year period, it was certainly not aberrational, and we deem that the public could well be at risk of further such misconduct, particularly when viewing Anderson’s lack of insight shown at trial and on review.

We also agree with the diminished weight accorded by the hearing judge to Anderson’s character evidence. (Std. 1.6(f).) Only one witness, a business developer and financial and securities expert, testified in person. His version of Anderson’s misconduct was formed largely from Anderson’s view of the facts, and this witness did not believe that the formal disciplinary charges were correct. The remaining ten witnesses submitted brief written declarations,; and, as the hearing judge found, five of these declarants’ statements were word-for-word identical.

(Mike Frisch)