Showing posts with label professional misconduct. Show all posts
Showing posts with label professional misconduct. Show all posts

Sunday, January 15, 2023

Ellsworth attorney disbarred by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court


By WABI News Desk

AUGUSTA, Maine (WABI) - An Ellsworth attorney has been disbarred by order of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.

In a December 19th decision, the court determined Christopher Whalley had engaged in professional misconduct that included dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation.

The court further determined Whalley’s misconduct was intentional and violated his duties .

According to court documents, Whalley allegedly took tens of thousands of dollars from the estate of a client.

As a result of his misconduct, Whalley has been disbarred from the practice of law in Maine for at least ten years.

Full Article & Source:
Ellsworth attorney disbarred by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court

Wednesday, April 27, 2022

State com­mission rules Westch­ester County judge be removed from office


By Kate Lisa

A village justice in Westchester County should be removed from office after he engaged in professional misconduct and lacked candor about a combined two-year suspension to practice law, according to a determination from the state Commission on Judicial Conduct released Monday.

Attorneys and justices on the commission voted Elmsford Village Court Justice Carlos Gonzalez, a Democrat, should be removed from his post in wake of the misconduct that occurred in connection with six incidents with clients.

"It would be contrary to the public interest and common sense to bar someone from appearing in court as a lawyer, but not from taking the bench and deciding legal issues," Commission Administrator Robert H. Tembeckjian said in a statement Monday.

The U.S. District Court of Western Connecticut suspended Gonzalez from practicing law after finding he engaged in professional misconduct while working as an attorney and failing to notify Connecticut's Appellate Division of his discipline in a timely manner, violating a state statute. 

In 2017, the Connecticut's U.S. District Court in Western Connecticut found Gonzalez failed to notify the Court of the Connecticut about his violation and subsequent discipline.

His total two-year suspension from practicing law in New York started May 14, 2021. The Appellate Division suspended Gonzalez for his professional misconduct for an additional 18 months to expire in July 2023.

Gonzalez took office April 5, 2021.

"Judge Gonzalez compounded his misconduct as an attorney and further undermined his integrity as a judge by being less than candid with the Appellate Division about his disciplinary history," Tembeckjian said.

The justice submitted a late, undated written opposition to the commission in January when acknowledging the facts surrounding his past suspensions.

Gonzalez also lacked candor when responding to the Ninth Judicial District's Grievance Committee about the misconduct, according to the determination. 

The commission ruled Gonzalez should be removed from the bench for his pattern of professional misconduct paired with an insincere attitude about the disciplinary actions detract from the integrity of judicial office.

"[His] professional misconduct and his lack of candor demonstrated that he is unfit for judicial office," according to the commission's determination.

Commissioners based the decision on disciplinary precedent to reprimand judges for their misconduct as an attorney and judges' obligation to behave in a manner that promotes high standards of public integrity and impartiality. 

Gonzalez ​argued he should not be removed from his post or disciplined for misconduct that took place before he became a judge. The commission rejected the argument saying his remaining on the bench "would significantly undermine public confidence in the dignity and integrity of the judiciary."

"Given the seriousness of respondent's professional misconduct as evidenced by his two suspensions from the practice of law, as well as the court's finding that he lacked candor in his dealings with the Grievance Committee, we believe that [Gonzalez] should be removed from the bench to protect the integrity of the courts," according to the determination. "... Under these circumstances, removal is required."

The commission's April 13 decision comes several weeks after hearing virtual oral arguments about Gonzalez's misconduct and suspension to practice law.

Gonzalez represented himself in the proceedings before the commission. Robert H. Tembeckjian, Mark Levine and Melissa DiPalo represented the commission.

Gonzalez's term expires March 16, 2025. He was first admitted to practice law in 2005. 

Town and village justices serve part-time and are permitted to practice law privately.

 Full Article & Source:

Monday, June 28, 2021

Local attorney David Keyes to be disbarred after 30-year career for misappropriating client funds

by Laura Fitzgerald

Local attorney David Keyes will be disbarred after 30-year career. Getty Images/Stockphoto

A local lawyer will be disbarred after a state board found he misappropriated client funds. 

The Michigan Attorney Discipline board issued an order of disbarment by consent for David Keyes, whose office is based in Fort Gratiot, on June 16. As part of the order, Keyes consented to punishment for allegations of professional misconduct. 

His disbarment is effective July 8. He also was ordered to pay $787 in fees to the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission. 

A commission report states Keyes deposited client funds in his own personal bank account instead of into an account for the Kelly Law Firm, where he was previously employed. 

"(The Michigan rules of professional conduct are) a high standard," Keyes said. "And I fell short of that standard. And not only did I fall short of the standards set by the rules, I fell short of my own standard.

"I recognize what I have done wrong and so it was important to me to take responsibility for my actions," he said.

Keyes is married to St. Clair County Assistant Prosecutor Melissa Keyes. 

The attorney grievance commission report 

The Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission report found that while representing two clients, Keyes asked that they pay legal fees directly to him, and he deposited the funds directly in his personal account. 

Keyes filed an order on behalf of those clients without their consent that required them to pay $50,000 into the firm's account for ongoing litigation expenses and prohibited withdrawal from the account from any party except by mutual consent or order of the court. Keyes then asked those clients to send him a $50,000 check payable to him, which he deposited into his personal bank account in direct violation of the order, according to the report. 

While representing a different pair of clients, he requested a $2,500 retainer, which he deposited into his personal account. When his clients entered into a $13,000 settlement agreement upon being told they would not be charged attorney fees, Keyes asked that opposing counsel make the settlement check payable to the firm. 

As a result of this, those clients were sent multiple invoices for Keyes' legal fees totaling $15,500. When Keyes received the settlement check, he didn't tell his clients, and the check was applied to the outstanding invoices, the report said. 

When Kelly Law Firm learned of Keyes' actions, the firm paid $13,000 to those clients and confronted Keyes, who did not deny mishandling the funds, the report said. Keyes repaid the firm. He was fired shortly after, according to the report. 

The commission found that Keyes told 10 other clients to make initial payments for legal services in the form of checks made payable to him personally. Rather than depositing the checks in the firm's account, he commingled or misappropriated the checks by depositing them in his personal bank account prior to earning legal fees, the report said. 

Keyes said the allegations occurred near the end of this time as an attorney. He was a private-practice civil litigator.  

  Kelly Law Firm said Keyes was fired in February 2020 and the firm filed a grievance with the attorney grievance commission shortly after.

Keyes said following his termination, he continued to practice law at his own office in Fort Gratiot.

John Adair, a member of Kelly Law Firm, said Keyes was employed with the firm for about 30 years. 

"For more than 30 years, our firm has built a solid reputation for providing clients with valued legal counsel built on a foundation of honesty, and integrity, and trust. When we learned of Mr. Keyes’ unethical conduct we took swift and immediate action to expel him from the Firm, notify the proper authorities, and work with affected clients," according to a written statement from Kelly Law Firm. "We respect the decision of the Attorney Discipline Board for his disbarment from the practice of law, just as we respect the ethical practice of the law and the great responsibility and duty that entails."

Full Article & Source:

Tuesday, December 8, 2020

Appellate court upholds former attorney’s disbarment


by Mark Reagan

The 13th Court of Appeals has affirmed a former Hidalgo County attorney’s disbarment.

The appellate court issued the ruling on Wednesday in an 89-page memorandum of opinion on remand.

The Commission for Lawyer Discipline took Mark A. Cantu to trial in 2016 alleging he committed professional misconduct during bankruptcy proceedings that also involved his wife, Roxanne Cantu, and a company they owned and controlled called Mar-Rox.

In a 10-2 decision, the jury decided Cantu violated the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct during those proceedings by making false statements; taking a position that unreasonably increased the costs or other burdens of the case; and knowingly offered or used false evidence, among other violations including dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation, according to the ruling.

In 2018, Cantu had secured a victory in the 13th Court of Appeals that reinstated him and granted him a new trial after the appellate court ruled that “erroneous” testimony had been allowed during his ethics trial.

The Texas Supreme Court, however, reversed that ruling after deciding that neither the admission of the judge’s testimony nor the admission into evidence of the judge’s memorandum opinion constituted reversible error.

“The supreme court remanded the case to this Court to consider Cantu’s remaining issues,” the most recent ruling states.

Those issues were numerous and include challenges to the admission of expert testimony, the jury charge, jury deliberations, the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence, the propriety of sanctions based on actions he took in his individual rather than professional capacity, the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the award of attorney fees.

The 13th Court of Appeals ruled against each and every one.

“We affirm Cantu’s judgment of disbarment,” the ruling states.

Cantu, his wife and Mar-Rox, their company, filed for voluntary bankruptcy on May 6, 2008, which was converted to a Chapter 7 liquidation on June 24, 2009, and a trustee was appointed to administer the estate.

“At the time of the voluntary bankruptcy filing, the Cantus owned University Inn [M]otel, Palm Plaza Motel and RV Park, La Vista Mobile Home Park, and Dominion Apartments. They owned Mar-Rox, Inc., through which they owned The Atrium, an office building in McAllen, four restaurants, and several other commercial properties for real estate holdings valued at about $24 million,” the ruling states.

Personal property owned by the Cantus in their bankruptcy schedules was valued at $3.9 million, according to court records.

“Mr. Cantu owned a successful law practice. At the time of the voluntary bankruptcy filing, the Cantus had more than $37 million in secured debt and more than $10 million in unsecured debt. Their company, Mar-Rox Inc., had more than $20 million in debt,” the ruling states.

As part of those proceedings, Cantu was required to make statements of his financial affairs under the penalty of perjury and the Commission for Lawyer Discipline alleged he failed to include significant assets and transactions.

“Respondent failed to disclose Respondent’s interests in two contingency fee cases, failed to disclose jewelry sales of more than $100,000.00 and failed to schedule two life-sized bronze horses worth about $20,000.00. The horses were placed on property belonging to Respondent Cantu’s sister in an apparent attempt to conceal them,” the ruling states.

He also failed to disclose a transfer of $50,000 to a friend, which was part of a $150,000 settlement as part of a bankruptcy court claim.

“Cantu was not honest with the Court regarding how that money was spent,” the ruling states.

The court also found Cantu failed to provide records of his use of estate funds, records of cash withdrawals from the estates, including withdrawals of cash from the businesses University Inn and La Vista, which was a violation of bankruptcy court orders regarding cash collateral.

“Cantu interfered with the sale of estate assets and failed to turn over assets belonging to the estate. He [interfered] with the sale of the Atrium building, he interfered with the turnover of valuable artwork from his offices, [and] he attempted to hide the horse statues,” the ruling states.

The commission says he made material false oaths regarding the existence of water damage cases in which Mar-Rox had an interest, the  existence of contingency fee interests, jewelry sales and the transfer of $50,000 to his friend.

“Throughout the bankruptcy proceeding, Respondent Cantu disregarded the requirements of the bankruptcy code and demonstrated a pattern of omission, obfuscation and non-compliance in violation of his obligations to the court. This pattern of behavior obstructed the administration of the bankruptcy estate and the [c]ourt, increased the expense and inconvenience for the trustee, the estate and the court and otherwise interfered and complicated the bankruptcy case . . . and its administration,” the ruling states.

 
Full Article & Source:

Sunday, July 26, 2020

Laramie attorney disbarred by the Wyoming Supreme Court

The Wyoming Supreme Court today issued an order disbarring Laramie lawyer Michael J. Pearce from the practice of law.

Pearce, who is currently serving a one-year suspension of his law license for previous professional misconduct, failed to respond to a formal disciplinary charged filed by the Office of Bar Counsel of the Wyoming State Bar. The formal charge related to Pearce’s conduct in two matters.

“In one of those matters, Bar Counsel alleged that Pearce forged his clients’ signatures to a settlement agreement and committed other violations of the rules of professional conduct for attorneys in his handling of that case,” a statement from the Wyoming State Bar said Wednesday. “In the other, Pearce refused to cooperate with Bar Counsel’s investigation of a complaint filed by one of Pearce’s other clients. Pearce defaulted on responding to the formal charge and the matter went to a hearing before the Board of Professional Responsibility (BPR) to determine an appropriate sanction for Pearce’s conduct.”

The Wyoming State Bar says that during the hearing, Pearce admitted to forging his clients’ signatures and committing other misconduct. Following the hearing, the BPR recommended Pearce’s disbarment to the Wyoming Supreme Court.

In its order approving the BPR’s recommendation and disbarring Pearce, the Court ordered Pearce to pay administrative fees in the amount of $1,500.00 and to reimburse the Wyoming State Bar for costs of the hearing.

Full Article & Source:
Laramie attorney disbarred by the Wyoming Supreme Court 

Wednesday, April 22, 2020

Baton Rouge lawyer permanently disbarred; must repay clients nearly $27,000

BY JOE GYAN JR.

A Baton Rouge lawyer has been permanently disbarred by the Louisiana Supreme Court for myriad instances of professional misconduct, including being held in contempt of court for failing to appear for scheduled hearings.

J. Renee Martin also was ordered by the high court to pay nearly $27,000 in restitution to 10 clients.

Martin, who was admitted to the Louisiana bar in 2005 but had been under suspension since early 2017, is now "permanently prohibited from being readmitted to the practice of law in this state," the Supreme Court wrote in an order dated last week.

Martin, 39, could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

A hearing committee had recommended to the high court that Martin be permanently disbarred because her offenses were so egregious.

"We agree," the justices said. "(Martin) has failed to account for or refund approximately $27,000 in client funds. In one instance, she settled a personal injury claim without her client's consent. She then failed to remit the funds owed to the client from the settlement and took an unauthorized fee from the settlement for work she was not contracted to do."

The Supreme Court also pointed out that Martin continued to practice law after the court placed her on interim suspension in February 2017.

The Supreme Court noted that she failed to answer the formal charges filed against her last summer by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, an arm of the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board. She also submitted nothing for the hearing committee's consideration, the court added.

One of the formal charges stated that Martin failed to appear twice in February 2016 on behalf of a client in the 19th Judicial District Court, prompting a judge to issue a bench warrant for her. She then gave "unsatisfactory answers" about the missed court dates at a March 2016 contempt hearing, the Supreme Court said.

The judge fined Martin $100 to recall the warrant, found her in contempt of court for failing to appear, fined her $500 for that failure and sentenced her to 30 days in jail, which was suspended upon payment of the $500 fine.

Then in September 2016, 15th Judicial District Judge Jules Edwards III filed a complaint with the state Office of Disciplinary Counsel regarding Martin's "repeated failures" to appear on behalf of a criminal client.

Her areas of law practice included family law, divorce, estate and power of attorney. She also handled personal injury cases.

Full Article & Source: 
Baton Rouge lawyer permanently disbarred; must repay clients nearly $27,000

Tuesday, August 30, 2016

EDITORIAL: Judicial discipline

Las Vegas Review-Journal

The state Judicial Discipline Commission last week dropped the hammer on Catherine Ramsey, a North Las Vegas Municipal Court judge.

After Judge Ramsey admitted to seven charges of professional misconduct, the panel barred her from seeking re-election next year and suspended her without pay for the final three months of her six-year term.

While it would be preferable if voters determined Judge Ramsey’s professional future, the commission’s action sends a strong message that judges have a responsibility to both the public and the legal profession to maintain high standards of integrity.

And while we’re on the topic of judicial integrity, let’s hope the commission also takes a hard look at the behavior of Las Vegas Justice of the Peace Conrad Hafen.

Judge Hafen in May garnered national attention when he ordered a public defender handcuffed and confined to the jury box after she tried to argue on behalf of her client. A group of defense attorney’s subsequently filed a complaint with the Judicial Discipline Commission arguing the judge’s actions showed “a complete disregard for the law.”

Then, earlier this month during a preliminary hearing, the judge banished the relatives of murder victims from his court and threatened to have an R-J reporter arrested for recording audio of the proceedings, a routine practice.

Judge Hafen failed to advance past the June primary election in his effort to secure a second term, so the discipline commission may be inclined to pass on the matter. In fact, though, a strong statement from the panel acknowledging that his behavior was inexcusable and unprofessional might go a long way toward deterring other jurists who may have similar proclivities.

Full Article & Source:
EDITORIAL: Judicial discipline