The California State Bar Court recommended a one-year suspension  with six months actual suspension and probation with conditions for an attorney’s conduct in representing an elderly client who had had a falling out with his daughter and replaced her as his trustee with the Respondent. 

In August 2009, Moore appointed his daughter as his attorney-in-fact due to his age (80) and the expectation he would need assistance managing his financial affairs due to his dementia. He began receiving treatment for his dementia a few months later. In early 2010, two of Moore’s treating physicians issued letters informing Moore’s daughter that he suffered from dementia, which caused him to become easily confused and impaired his judgment, reasoning, and ability to process and retain information. They concluded Moore was no longer competent and recommended that his daughter’s authority under the Trust be activated to protect Moore from the undue influence of others. Around the same time, Moore’s daughter discovered that he was giving large amounts of money to his girlfriend. When she brought up the issue with her father, he accused his daughter of stealing money from the Trust. On September 28, 2010, Moore signed a revocation of the power of attorney previously given to his daughter.

Moore retained Respondent 

Salzwedel promptly prepared, and Moore signed, three documents: (1) Moore’s resignation as trustee; (2) a partial revocation and modification of the Trust, which removed the as the successor trustee and named Salzwedel as temporary successor trustee; and (3) a durable power of attorney appointing Salzwedel as Moore’s attorney-in-fact. Salzwedel made the modification to the Trust without having a copy of it. He did not advise Moore that he could seek the advice of an independent attorney regarding the consequences of naming Salzwedel as the sole temporary trustee while also representing him as his attorney. Salzwedel also failed to provide a writing to Moore describing his services as trustee or the costs for those services and did not ask for Moore’s written consent to the terms naming himself as successor trustee.

The issue of the dual roles of attorney and trustee was raised in the ensuing litigation in which the daughter sought a conservatorship for her father

In June 2012, Salzwedel filed a petition to settle his account; however, Friend and the daughter objected. Judge Reiser expressed concern that Salzwedel billed and paid himself $148,015.11, and then approved the payments in his role as trustee, during a time when Moore was “clearly susceptible to elder abuse.”

The court disapproved of Salzwedel’s fees and medical expert expenses absent a showing that the services benefitted Moore in the amounts charged and that Moore had the capacity to contract for and approve of Salzwedel’s fees when services were rendered. He billed his attorney rate of $180 per hour for doing non-legal services (e.g., driving Moore to the bank and doctor’s appointments and his girlfriend to the hospital, arranging home care services, scheduling a dermatology appointment, arranging driving lessons for Moore, doing medical research, and searching for Moore when he went missing from the hospital). He also billed Moore for talking to the State Bar when he was being investigated for this disciplinary matter. In addition, Salzwedel charged his attorney rate for performing trustee duties such as overseeing property management and paying property taxes.

He was ordered to repay over $96,000 to the estate and after contesting that result

Salzwedel filed a request for a new trial, which was denied. He then appealed the surcharge decision and order. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, commended the probate court’s ruling and rationale, and ordered a copy of the opinion be sent to the State Bar for possible discipline.

Then

On April 26, 2017, Salzwedel filed a complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief and damages in federal court against Judge Reiser, Shea, Friend, Moore’s daughter and her attorney, the appellate court that affirmed the surcharge order and decision in the Moore matter, the Chief Justice of California, the entire judicial branch of California, and others.

He failed to overturn the result all the way up to cert denied by the United States Supreme Court.

Respondent must make restitution as a condition of reinstatement. (Mike Frisch)