Tedious But Obligatory

An agreed disposition of a reprimand was imposed by the Arizona Presiding Disciplinary Judge.

The agreed misconduct

Mr. Rensch deposited a cashier’s check for $10,497 “relating to client D.W.” Apparently through no fault of Mr. Rensch the check did not clear despite bankers informing him the funds were available.

Because of the insufficient funds notification, the State Bar Trust Account Examiner sent Mr. Rensch a copy of the overdraft notification. The examiner requested an explanation and copies of the related mandatory records covering that February’s bank statement period. Mr. Rensch provided some of the requested information. Mr. Rensch has two prior trust account related diversions. Rather than deliver the requested individual client ledgers and administrative funds/bank charges ledger, he submitted client statements. He also declined to furnish copies of cancelled checks and duplicate deposit records, stating he intentionally discards them.

It was determined the check was from a client, all of which was earned fees. Mr. Rensch is admittedly “in the habit of putting everything through my IOLTA account first.” Notwithstanding that statement, when asked why and for how long he had been depositing earned funds into his IOLTA account, Mr. Rensch was untruthful in stating that was the only time he had done so. The February bank statement period proved he had deposited fully earned funds twice more in that same period.

And

 The Agreement points out Mr. Rensch “knows the trust account rules but resists anyone telling him he must comply even with the seemingly tedious, or to him unnecessary, bookkeeping requirements.” His response to the State Bar declared the State Bar’s mandated inquiry as “officious overreaching” and “irritating” and “insulting.” Mr. Rensch has attended TAEEP and obtained personalized Trust Account Program tutoring. The agreement outlines an intentional disregard of the rules.

 Disposition

Based on the multiple rehabilitative efforts to bring Mr. Rensch into compliance with trust rules and procedures since 2005, the PDJ is concerned a reprimand and probation will not fulfill the objectives of discipline and is not appropriate based on these conditional admissions. However, the stipulated term of 18 months of probation with the State Bar’s Law Office Management Assistance Program (“LOMAP”) to monitor his compliance with trust account rules and procedures will offer him an opportunity to either succeed or fail over a sufficient mandated period and offers adequate supervision for the protection of the legal profession and public.

(Mike Frisch)