A “Charming Young Man”

An attorney’s accommodation of another lawyer led to a two-year suspension imposed by an associate justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

In 2010, the respondent’s longtime friend Ross Annenberg, was employed as an associate attorney by a law firm with which the respondent was not associated. As an associate, Annenberg received an annual salary plus a “rain-maker” fee. The committee credited the employer’s testimony that Annenberg was not going to do cases outside of the firm. At some point during 2010, Annenberg told the respondent that his employer was in financial distress, and asked to use the respondent’s IOLTA account to deposit money from cases for his own personal injury clients. At first the respondent refused, telling Annenberg that it was “not Kosher,” and suggested that Annenberg open his own IOLTA account.

Some time later, Annenberg renewed his request, and by August, 2010, the respondent was allowing Annenberg to deposit checks that Annenberg received on behalf of clients into the respondent’s IOLTA account. The respondent assumed that Annenberg did not have his own IOLTA account, and did not inquire further why Annenberg did not open one. The committee credited the respondent’s testimony that he ultimately agreed to  Annenberg’s request out of concern for Annenberg, who indicated to the respondent that he was not receiving his share of fees and was unable to pay his bills. The committee, however, did not credit the respondent’s testimony that prior to granting Annenberg’s request, he received independent information of Annenberg’s employer’s financial situation. Rather, the committee found that the respondent did not receive verification from anyone other than Annenberg concerning the financial condition of Annenberg’s employer until after the respondent had already allowed Annenberg to deposit funds into his IOLTA account. 

The committee credited the respondent’s testimony that he did not think about whether the employer had any interest in the funds deposited into his IOLTA account and the respondent’s denial that he knew Annenberg was taking money from his employer’s cases. Nevertheless, the committee found that the respondent was “grossly negligent” in accepting Annenberg’s representations and in failing to consider that the funds Annenberg deposited into the respondent’s IOLTA account were funds in which Annenberg’s employer might have an interest.

Deposits totaling over $150,000 were made

The committee further found that Annenberg intentionally misused the funds disbursed to him by the respondent for his own business or personal use unrelated to the clients. In 2015, the Court accepted Annenberg’s affidavit of resignation and disbarred him, based on his admission that bar counsel could prove that he intentionally misused $50,780 in client funds. Thereafter, the respondent sent Annenberg’s employer all monies retained from the funds that he personally received from Annenberg.

There were several aggravating factors but

the committee also credited in mitigation the respondent’s testimony that he was duped by a “charming young man” with somewhat similar background and interests, but noted that this factor did not relieve the respondent in any large measure from his responsibility for his personal misconduct.

Sanction per Associate Justice Hines

I agree with the board that the committee led to give proper weight to the other aggravating factors, namely the respondent’s failure to acknowledge the wrongfulness of his actions, and instead attempt to reargue, and ultimately distance himself from, his prior disciplinary matters.

After considering all of the allegations and the nature of the conduct, I conclude that a two-year suspension is the appropriate discipline.

A summary of the Annenberg disbarment is linked here. (Mike Frisch)