The Informant Ran Off With The Cash
Kathleen Maloney previews a bar discipline matter set for argument today before the Ohio Supreme Court.
Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association v. Matthew J. King, Case no. 2018-1762
Cuyahoga County
In June 2016, Cleveland attorney Matthew J. King was convicted of two counts of money laundering and one count of attempted money laundering. The trial court sentenced King to 44 months in prison for the felonies, and he was released in August 2018 after serving part of his sentence.
The Ohio Board of Professional Conduct suspended King from practicing law on an interim basis following his convictions. The board now suggests an indefinite suspension for King with no credit for the time on the interim suspension. The Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association objects to the proposed sanction, arguing for King’s disbarment.
Early in his legal career, King worked as an assistant law director and prosecutor for the city of Lakewood and as an assistant Cuyahoga County prosecutor.
Attorney Agrees to Set Up Fake Business for Drug Money
In 2014, King had a conversation with a law-enforcement confidential informant, who indicated he was a drug dealer connected to a Mexican cartel. In recorded discussions, King talked about forming a corporation and opening a bank account for the informant to launder money obtained from drug deals and first depositing the money through his client trust account (IOLTA). The lawyer accepted $20,000 from the man.
However, King never filed the paperwork for the corporation, and didn’t deposit any of the man’s money into his IOLTA account. During the next several weeks, whenever the informant asked, King gave him cash. The lawyer also gave the informant a check from his personal account for $2,000 as a way to show the informant that a bank account was being used to launder the money.
The informant absconded with all of the money. King subsequently offered to help the FBI recover the money. In October 2015, the attorney was indicted for money laundering and found guilty.
Board Considers Mitigating Factors
At his disciplinary hearing, King argued the government’s case was flawed because he only held the cash and gave the informant a personal check. He noted he is considering a habeas corpus petition to try to overturn his convictions. King also described his struggle with drinking, his father’s death, a difficult divorce, and his estrangement from a daughter during the time that he engaged in the money-laundering scheme. A common pleas judge, who is King’s Alcoholic Anonymous’ sponsor, testified for King.
While the panel that handled the hearing noted King’s dishonest and selfish motive, it also acknowledged his prison sentence, completion of an alcohol and drug rehabilitation program in prison, cooperation during the disciplinary process, and evidence of his legal abilities and good character.
Although the bar association advocates for disbarment, the board concluded that the sanction isn’t necessary to protect the public. The board recommends to the Ohio Supreme Court an indefinite suspension for King with no credit for the time he has spent on the interim suspension. Along with the standard requirements for reinstatement to the practice of law, King must show proof of his continued sobriety, under the board’s recommendation.
Bar Association Argues for Disbarment Based on Crimes
The bar association objects to the board’s suggested sanction. The bar association points to a few cases from 1993 in which the Ohio Supreme Court permanently disbarred lawyers in circumstances similar to King’s.
The bar association also maintains that King’s testimony reveals that he hasn’t acknowledged the seriousness of his conduct. Nor has he offered evidence that his illegal actions were caused by his alcoholism or stemmed from his personal family troubles, the bar association argues. Although the board stated in its report that it appreciates King’s efforts to change his life since his crimes, the bar association contends that those steps aren’t enough to warrant his return to practicing law.
Attorney Stresses He Didn’t Pursue Illegal Plans
Noting that he never formed a corporation for the informant nor took any of the other steps they had discussed, King maintains that he didn’t intend to commit money laundering and notes the assistance he provided to the FBI when arrested. He argues that he never followed through with any of the plans for setting up a shell corporation, unlike the lawyers in the 1993 cases cited by the bar association.
The bar association ignores not only his actions to take responsibility and better his life, but also the board’s finding that he accepted that his conduct was immoral and unethical, King states. Pointing out that the Supreme Court can exercise independent judgment when considering all relevant factors in disciplinary cases, he asks for a sanction less severe than disbarment.
I am live blogging the argument.
According to the Relator, the attorney got his (failed) idea from Breaking Bad and Rush Limbaugh.
The court through several members seems to challenge the appropriateness of permanent disbarment.
Counsel got into trouble by seeming to suggest that white collar crime is less sanctionable than drug-related crimes.
Counsel for the Respondent argued for providing him an opportunity to get his license back.
Questions focused on issues of credit for time served for interim suspension and an acknowledgment that he cannot be reinstated while on criminal probation.
Prediction: Less than disbarment. (Mike Frisch)