Disbarment Worthy: Lawyer Lied, Stole And Manipulated Avvo Rating

The Indiana Supreme Court disbarred an attorney who stole approximately $150,000 in entrusted funds.

His rather appropriate name is David J. Steele.

Respondent misappropriated approximately $150,000 of client funds from his attorney trust account. Respondent redirected most of these unearned fees into his personal or operating account, although he sometimes “peel[ed] off a few hundred dollars” to give to his employees as a “spot bonus.” Respondent communicated extensively with his office manager (“JD”) regarding these thefts and the Disciplinary Commission inquiries prompted by these thefts…

At the outset of a client representation, Respondent typically would collect a $2,500 or $3,500 deposit from the client. Respondent’s fee agreements purported to render these advance fees nonrefundable, and Respondent vigorously enforced this nonrefundability provision against clients. Additionally, Respondent instructed his office staff to inflate billable hours and rates by a variety of means. Respondent often would use these false billing practices as retaliation against clients who requested a refund “or otherwise got crosswise with” him. Respondent regularly communicated with JD and others within his office regarding these practices. An illustrative example is the following email Respondent sent to JD regarding one particular client:

I simply cannot tell you how tired [I] am of these people. How tired [I] am of hearing about the stupid f***ing transcripts she ordered on her own and [ ] expects me to split with her. . . . You added a line to her January bill right? A line that said, ‘emails and phone calls to and from client, prepare for hearing,’ right? How much time did we put down for that? I think [I] only told you like 4.5 hours right? Well f*** that. If she wants me to split the cost of those f***ing transcripts [I] told her not to get, add another 1.5 hours to that line ok?

He fired JD and

Respondent fired JD after just two and one-half months of employment, and JD contacted the Commission to report Respondent’s misconduct. Upon learning this, Respondent sent JD numerous text messages and emails threatening and intimidating JD and attempting to dissuade JD from cooperating with the Commission. In one such message, Respondent told JD, “No one will ever hire you if [I] get disbarred for something you told them. You think lawyers want someone in their office who tried to get their last boss disbarred?” In another message, Respondent disparaged JD for his sexual orientation, writing “So is this the part where [I] say I’ll meet you on the playground and we can settle it like men? Or like men who [ ] are so the opposite of men that they even take their husband’s last name?”

And this

Respondent made false statements to the Commission during its investigation that, by Respondent’s own description, were “virtually pathological in frequency and scope.” Respondent habitually lied in his responses to the Commission’s inquiries regarding his trust account, billing and refund practices, and numerous highly derogatory statements Respondent had made about clients and various opposing counsel. Respondent also lied regarding the circumstances of JD’s termination of employment, falsely telling the Commission that JD had been caught having sex with a male client in Respondent’s office and that JD had gained access to the firm’s website to post disparaging comments against the gay community. Additionally, Respondent brandished a handgun when he terminated JD’s employment, and Respondent instructed an associate attorney (“AA”) who witnessed this incident to lie about this fact to the Commission.

And

Respondent frequently lied to his clients, office staff, and third parties. Respondent also instructed his staff to “lie to all comers” regarding Respondent’s whereabouts and other matters. Illustrative examples, among the many cited in the verified complaint and admitted by Respondent, include Respondent falsely telling opposing counsel that Respondent was “in a hospital room watching a loved one die of cancer” and falsely telling a client that Respondent was unavailable for a meeting because his dog had just died. Respondent regularly enlisted the aid of JD and AA to perpetuate these lies and bragged to them when the lies were successful.

He manipulated his Avvo rating

In addition to his firm’s website (which includes laudatory client testimonials), Respondent maintains a profile on Avvo.com, a legal marketing website. Respondent, by his own description, “actively manipulate[d his] Avvo reviews by monetarily incentivizing positive reviews, and punishing clients who write negative reviews by publicly exposing confidential information about them.” Respondent’s posted responses to negative reviews also included numerous false statements. Compounding this misconduct, on at least one occasion Respondent was mistaken about the identity of a negative reviewer, prompting him to expose the confidential information of a former client other than the one who had posted the review.

Last but not least

Respondent, by his own description, “record[ed] conversations of clients and potential clients for [his] own personal amusement.” Respondent shared these recordings with his staff and his relatives. In another incident, Respondent instructed JD and AA to record a client conversation in his absence, again for purposes of amusement. Respondent openly mocked these recorded individuals in his conversations with others and in a meeting with the Commission.

The court

The seriousness, scope, and sheer brazenness of Respondent’s misconduct is outrageous. He stole approximately $150,000 from his clients, threatened and intimidated his staff, disparaged and mocked virtually everyone around him, lied to all comers, and obstructed the Commission’s investigation. Perhaps most disturbingly, Respondent repeatedly and fundamentally breached the duty of confidentiality that lies at the heart of the attorney-client relationship. Respondent recorded privileged communications and shared those recordings with others for his own amusement, he solicited his office staff to do the same, and he posted client confidences and falsehoods on a legal marketing website in order to “punish” certain clients and inflate Respondent’s own website ranking…

Respondent’s actions amount to a pattern of systemic and wide-ranging misconduct, and rather than express any regret or remorse for his actions or the harm they have caused, Respondent has proudly trumpeted his repugnant behavior as the raison d’etre of his practice. There can be no doubt in these circumstances that disbarment is warranted and that Respondent’s privilege to practice law should be permanently revoked.

The attorney has been on interim suspension and consented to the disbarment. (Mike Frisch)