“Brazen Acts Of Deception” And “Shameless Financial Exploitation”

In a case that has spawned disciplinary sanctions in multiple jurisdictions, the New Jersey Supreme Court has imposed a five-year suspension of an attorney for misconduct in the representation of wrongly convicted client.

The Court having determined that a five-year suspension from the practice of law is the appropriate quantum of discipline for respondent’s unethical conduct

The Disciplinary Review Board described the misconduct and had recommended that he be disbarred

respondent performed minimal work in furtherance of the pardon petitions, which pro bono counsel had prepared and
filed months before respondent’s retention. Further, following the issuance of the gubernatorial pardons, the NCIC petition became a straightforward application that guaranteed his clients a total of $1.5 million for their wrongful imprisonment. Respondent, however, failed to submit any evidence to justify his $500,000 contingent fee in connection with that risk-free process. As an experienced attorney with bar admissions in six jurisdictions, respondent knew that his decision to unilaterally take a one-third contingent fee from the $1.5 million NCIC award was in no way proportional to the services he had rendered, considering the minimal work required for that application. Nevertheless, knowing that his clients lacked the ability to comprehend his overreach, respondent seized upon that opportunity to enrich himself at their expense.

We find respondent’s decision to take a contingency fee from that award unquestionably dishonest, demonstrating that he placed his own pecuniary gain above the welfare of his clients. Indeed, both McCollum and Brown appeared to have received less than half of the $750,000 award to which they were each entitled, despite needing those funds to rebuild their lives after decades of wrongful incarceration.

Respondent’s misconduct, however, did not end there. In May and October 2016, following the depletion of McCollum’s entire NCIC award, respondent arranged for McCollum to receive two additional high-interest litigation loans, totaling $65,000. Although McCollum could not comprehend the consequences of the loans, respondent continued to misrepresent to MFI that he had explained the loan terms to his client.

Thereafter, during a December 2016 mediation session in connection with the stepbrother’s civil litigation before the EDNC, respondent conducted a detailed presentation describing McCollum’s serious intellectual disabilities, following which the Town of Red Springs questioned McCollum’s competence to enter into a settlement. To salvage his ability to secure a quick settlement and a substantial legal fee, respondent requested a new evaluation of McCollum by the same neuropsychologist who previously had concluded that McCollum lacked the capacity to make everyday decisions. However, this time, the neuropsychologist concluded that McCollum was competent to manage his own affairs.

Following the neuropsychologist’s assessment, respondent requested that the EDNC approve a $1 million settlement to resolve the stepbrothers’ claims against the Town of Red Springs, in addition to his $403,493.96 in alleged fees and costs. In support of his application, respondent misrepresented to the EDNC that McCollum was competent to enter into both the Fee Agreement and the settlement. Moreover, respondent maintained that his significant fee was justified based on his procurement of the pardons for the stepbrothers, his successful NCIC petition, and his appointment of a guardian for Brown. Respondent, however, concealed from the EDNC the fact that he already had received $500,000 in grossly excessive compensation for such services, much of which were substantially reliant on the work product of the stepbrothers’ prior, pro bono counsel.

One month later, in May 2017, the EDNC denied respondent’s request, finding the neuropsychologist’s recent assessment “unpersuasive” and appointing Tarlton as McCollum’s guardian ad litem. During the August 2017 hearing before the EDNC concerning McCollum’s competency, respondent again insisted that his client had the capacity to settle his claims, despite acknowledging that McCollum’s “lack of mental capacity” was a crucial component of his civil claims. Thereafter, when the EDNC directed the parties to submit recommendations of new mental health experts to evaluate McCollum, respondent expressed his receptiveness to the neuropsychologist’s suggestion that he “have some rehearsal with” McCollum regarding the basic aspects of his finances. The very next day, respondent moved to discharge Tarlton as McCollum’s guardian and to discontinue any further evaluations of his client, falsely asserting that there was no credible evidence that his client was intellectually impaired.

Subsequently, following a forensic psychiatrist’s determination that McCollum clearly lacked the capacity to manage his own affairs, the EDNC declared the Fee Agreement invalid and denied respondent’s request to terminate Tarlton as guardian, emphasizing that respondent “was plainly on notice that his potential clients had intellectual disabilities and that their abilities to proceed without a guardian were at issue.” Although the EDNC approved the proposed settlement with the Town of Red Springs, it declined to award respondent any legal fees and, at Tarlton’s request, it removed respondent from the representation for good cause.

We view respondent’s attempt to obtain a swift settlement and a substantial payout in his favor as a disturbing course of deception towards his adversary and a federal court. At first, respondent meticulously detailed McCollum’s serious intellectual disabilities to his adversary during settlement negotiations. However, when his adversary and the EDNC questioned whether McCollum’s intellectual limitations precluded him from participating in the settlement without a guardian, respondent abruptly changed his position to salvage his substantial legal fee. Specifically, he arranged for the neuropsychologist to issue a new opinion, in which he concluded, contrary to his earlier assessment and the opinions of numerous medical professionals who had evaluated McCollum, that his client was capable of settling his claims. When that tactic failed, respondent attempted to terminate any additional medical evaluations of McCollum along with his court-appointed guardian, demonstrating a total disregard for the interests of his vulnerable client, who clearly required such protections. Further, in anticipation of an independent evaluation of his client, respondent openly expressed his willingness to have “some rehearsal” with McCollum regarding his financial affairs.

Respondent’s brazen acts of deception towards a federal court, coupled with his shameless financial exploitation of his vulnerable, intellectually impaired clients, clearly support a recommendation for his disbarment.

Admissions

Respondent earned admission to the New Jersey and Florida bars in 2004; to the New York bar in 2003; to the North Carolina bar in 2013; to the Texas bar in 2014; and to the Washington bar in 2015. During the relevant timeframe, he maintained a practice of law in Orlando, Florida.

Scorecard

Effective September 22, 2022, the Supreme Court of Washington suspended respondent for five years in connection with his misconduct underlying this matter. In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Megaro, 2022 Wash. LEXIS 499 (2022).

Effective April 12, 2023, the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department disbarred respondent in connection with his misconduct underlying this matter. In re Megaro, 215 A.D.3d 67 (2023).

Effective August 25, 2023, the Supreme Court of Texas, Board of Disciplinary Appeals, suspended respondent for five years, on consent, in connection with his misconduct underlying this matter. In the Matter of Patrick Michael Megaro, State Bar Card No. 24091024, 86 Texas Bar Journal 737 (2023).

Finally, effective October 21, 2023, the Supreme Court of Florida imposed a “disciplinary revocation” of respondent’s admission to the Florida bar in connection with his misconduct underlying this matter. In re Disciplinary Revocation of Megaro, 2023 Fla. LEXIS 1457 (2023).

Disciplinary proceedings are pending in North Carolina. (Mike Frisch)