An attorney’s series of misappropriations merit disbarment, according to a recent recommendation of the California State Bar Court Review Department.

Brian Edward Reed admitted misappropriating client funds and committing several trust account rule violations in a single client matter; he maintains, however, that his misconduct was unintentional and based on sloppy bookkeeping. The hearing judge disagreed, found Reed acted intentionally, and recommended disbarment. After independently reviewing the record (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.12), we adopt the hearing judge’s findings as set forth below.

Over a period of nearly two years, Reed continually deflected requests from his client for disbursement of her trust funds, claiming outstanding medical liens prevented remittance, yet, at the same time, he invaded the client trust account (CTA) at least 30 times, misappropriating $14,841.11 for his own purposes and providing his client with almost no accounting whatsoever. Under these circumstances, the disciplinary standards call for disbarment, and finding no compelling reason to depart from the standards, we affirm the disbarment recommendation.

The Review Board rejected procedural claims

Additionally, we consider two procedural claims advanced by Reed. First, he argues that he did not have competent counsel to assist him in his State Bar proceeding and that in light of this and his health issues, the trial should not have taken place when it did. Reed’s claims lack merit. Reed was granted three trial continuances over a nine-month period in order to accommodate his health issues and provide him with time to substitute counsel or prepare his own defense. When trial commenced in September 2015, Reed had medical clearance from his doctor to resume normal work activities with a half-day schedule; the trial schedule was modified accordingly; and Reed was represented by counsel of his choice. Under these circumstances, Reed suffered no prejudice nor deprivation of due process, as the judge struck a fair balance between accommodating Reed and exercising responsible control over the trial…

Second, Reed argues that the State Bar’s subpoena for his CTA bank records was defective and did not provide proper notice. Without citation to any authority, he argues that the CTA bank records (Exhibit 37) should be stricken from the record as should any culpability determinations stemming from Exhibit 37 based on the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. This argument is also unavailing. The documentary evidence demonstrates that he was on notice and fully aware of the State Bar’s subpoena months before trial. His letter to the State Bar, dated June 23, 2014, states: “I have no copies of the [CTA] deposit information, but know that you have this information by use of a subpoena duce tecum . . . .” Moreover, Reed’s own trial concessions belie his claim of taint, and he otherwise fails to establish any resulting prejudice.