Thou Shalt Not Mulct

The California State Bar Court Hearing Department recommends disbarment for an attorney’s abusive billing practices

Respondent’s procedures for dealing with complaining clients constituted overreaching. When clients complained about her billings, she would threaten to sue or file liens against them. “The essence of a fiduciary or confidential relationship is that the parties do not deal on equal terms, because the person in whom trust and confidence is reposed . . . is in a superior position to exert unique influence over the dependent party.” (Beery v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 802, 813.) Respondent exploited her position as an attorney and intimidated her clients. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the right to practice law “is not a license to mulct the unfortunate.” (Recht v. State Bar (1933) 218 Cal. 352, 355.) Respondent did just that by filing invalid liens against DeMarco and threatening to sue Berg for $100,000, based on an hourly agreement that never existed. As a result, Berg panicked and was forced to give Respondent four parcels of land. She claimed that Berg did not pay her a dime for costs; when in fact, Berg had paid her $1,000 for filing fees and $600 for travel expenses. Respondent charged Rojas $1,524.95 on a blank check when the client clearly told her to tear up the check and terminated her employment.

Editor’s note – I learned a new word “mulct”  –  to extract money from (someone) by fine or taxation.

In the DeMarco matter, Respondent intimidated opposing counsel Hylton and Thakor with threats of reprisal. Respondent threatened to sue Hylton if Respondent’s name was not included on DeMarco’s settlement checks. Respondent then filed a state bar complaint against Hylton for not paying her share of DeMarco’s settlement funds. And when Respondent threatened to file a state bar complaint against Thakur, she withdrew from the case.

And

 Respondent’s lack of candor is a significant aggravating factor…

Respondent is dishonest and abusive towards her clients, opposing counsel, and others. Indeed, Respondent engaged in multiple acts of deception for personal gain. Her ‘‘lack of insight makes [her] an ongoing danger to the public.” (In the Matter of Song, supra, 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 273, 279.) She has no recognition of her wrongdoing and has flagrantly breached her fiduciary duties. Her extreme dishonesty to this court and to her clients raises concerns as to whether her misconduct may recur and is particularly troubling to this court.

Here, the attorney was brought down by taking a fee interest in client property. It is much harder to prove the more common form of mulcting, i. e. bill padding. (Mike Frisch)