Wrongfully Convicted, Highly Vulnerable Clients Fall Prey To Lawyer Misconduct

The April 2021 report of the North Carolina Office of Counsel describes a recent panel order of discipline that suspends an attorney for five years with the possibility of a stay

Megaro, of Orlando, Florida, represented two clients with IQs in the 50s, both of whom were sentenced to death and imprisoned for decades after being wrongfully convicted of the rape and murder of a child. They have now been exonerated. The hearing took place on March 15-19, 2021. The Panel found that Megaro entered into a contract with the clients when he knew they didn’t have the capacity to understand it, charged an “irrevocable” fee, charged an excessive fee, made misrepresentations to his clients and to tribunals, and made arguments against his clients’ interests in an effort to protect his own fee. Megaro was suspended for five years and ordered to reimburse $250,000.00 to the clients as a condition of reinstatement. Mr. Megaro may petition for a stay of the final three years after serving two years’ active suspension.

The panel describes the victims

McCollum and Brown were exceptionally vulnerable to the type of manipulation, deception, and exploitation perpetrated by Defendant. These clients had intellectual deficits and a history of trauma during their lengthy wrongful incarceration. Evaluating clinicians repeatedly described them as susceptible to manipulation and undue influence. Defendant was aware of his clients’ vulnerabilities. Instead of protecting them, he capitalized on their naivete and inability to understand.

By charging and collecting clearly excessive amounts of McCollum and Brown’s Industrial Commission awards based on a fee agreement he knew the clients could not understand, and in a proceeding where his actual work was de minimis and there was little or no risk that his clients would not receive the maximum allowed by statute, Defendant financially exploited McCollum and Brown causing significant harm to his clients. Likewise, by arguing that McCollum was mentally competent in an effort to preserve his fee in the civil case, Defendant acted for his own financial benefit to the detriment of his client’s legal interests.

Defendant used the attorney-client relationship as a foundation for obtaining money he had not earned from clients who lacked the knowledge and sophistication to question his actions or suspect his selfish motive. By elevating his own interests above the interests of McCollum and Brown, Defendant compromised the fiduciary relationship and caused significant harm to his clients.

Respondent cooperated with the bar process but 

Defendant’s testimony during the disciplinary hearing, however, reflects a pervasive tendency to blame others for his misconduct rather than acknowledging wrongdoing. Specifically, Defendant claimed that the allegations of misconduct against him arose due to the animosity of other lawyers who had also represented McCollum and/or Brown, rather than his own intentional acts.

There is no indication that Defendant has taken ownership of his misconduct or its consequences. With a few minor exceptions,  he has not acknowledged violating the Rules of Professional Conduct. Defendant has not expressed remorse or shown any insight regarding the ways in which he betrayed his clients’ trust.

Defendant has not refunded any of the excessive fees he collected from McCollum and Brown, insisting that he is entitled to $500,000.00 for his participation in the pro forma Industrial Commission proceedings.

Sanction

Nothing can remedy the injustices inflicted upon McCollum and Brown, or their further betrayal by the very lawyer who they trusted to seek redress for those injustices. The harm to McCollum and Brown would be mitigated, however, if Defendant returned a portion of the excessive fee he improperly collected from them. Accordingly, Defendant’s ability to practice law in the future should be conditioned upon his reimbursing McCollum and Brown for a portion of the amount of unearned fees he collected.

The New & Observer reported on the panel decision.

I am very impressed that this report was filed less than two months after a multi-day hearing.

Other jurisdictions would do well to emulate such efficiency. (Mike Frisch)