Lawyer, Guns And Money

The Georgia Supreme Court accepted a petition for voluntary discipline of a 12-month suspension

In his petition, Kunda admits that, in 2014, he was retained to prepare a client’s will, in the course of which he agreed to act as the estate’s executor without having first obtained the client’s written informed consent to the potential conflict of interest. While claiming he did not know so at the time, he now admits that this conduct violated Rule 1.7 (prohibiting lawyer from undertaking representation involving a conflict of interest, absent client’s informed consent). Kunda admits further that, in connection with the sale of a gun collection for the same client, he accepted on the client’s behalf a cash payment through a firearm broker for the $130,000 balance due, but did not count the cash upon its delivery, and the following morning deposited $117,000 into his trust account, thereby leaving $13,000 unaccounted for. Kunda maintains that this $13,000 was part of the payment ultimately owed for the broker’s services and that he thereafter made arrangements to satisfy the debt with $13,000 worth of legal services and payments to the broker. Kunda admits, however, that in failing to safeguard the money while it was in his possession, he violated Rule 1.15 (I) (a) & (c) (requiring lawyer to safeguard and account for client property held in connection with representation). Finally, Kunda admits that, in connection with the firearm sale and on the advice of a federal agency official, Kunda prepared a codicil to the client’s will that was to take effect only if the client died prior to consummation of the gun sale. The codicil provided that Kunda was
to inherit the gun collection and thereafter sell it, with the proceeds being paid to the will’s beneficiary.  Kunda admits that, by preparing this codicil, he violated Rule 1.8 (c)’s prohibition on the preparation of instruments “giving the lawyer . . . any substantial gift.”

Footnote

According to Kunda, this codicil was designed to avoid the possibility that the gun collection would pass to the will’s beneficiary, who disapproved of guns and did not wish to own them himself.

He had agreed to a range of potential suspension from 90 days to two years

we find that a 12-month suspension is the appropriate sanction in this case for Kunda’s admitted violations of Rules 1.7 and 1.15 (I) (a) & (c).

The attorney expressed remorse and had no prior discipline. (Mike Frisch)