next case on the call the docket is case number one one one three seven eight and remark two ard motor row agenda number seven coun good morning your honour's system over zero may it please the court my name is stephen split and i represent the administrator of the attorney registration and disciplinary commission in these proceedings with the administrator asks this court today to reverse a finding by the hearing and review boards below that respondents conversion of approximately one hundred fifteen thousand dollars that he was supposed to hold in escrow was not dishonest and also to reject review board sanction recommendation a recommendation of a six month suspension and instead to suspend respondent from the practice of law for three for three years excuse me respondent is a sophisticated investor and a successful businessman with with real estate investing he also has a solo law practice he testified that eighty percent of his time was spent in his real estate ventures and twenty percent in his law practice in two thousand and four or two thousand and five you agreed to represent a friend of his adam fishman who was getting divorced after th holding these funds in escrow and responded agreed to take over the escrow and he had the funds transferred into his bank account a terrorist bank now responded he had a number of bank accounts that harris bank he had a number he had personal bank accounts he had a number of bank accounts in connection with his various investment businesses like city investors k m a celtic management he also had an operating account for his law firm in and i all to account for his law firm so he had the funds transferred into his eye all account on november third of two thousand and five within eighteen days of the transfer forty thousand dollars was gone when he put the money into his counter was three hundred twelve dollars in that account so he put in the hundred fifteen forty thousand of it was gone in eighteen days now respondent testified that he did not balance any of his accounts he had a personal banker at harris bank he had a paralegal at his firm both of those individuals had authority through him to transfer money around within his various bank accounts he testified that that he's all to account because he didn't really hold the client funds became a place to in his words park money until it was needed for other things so that's what happened to the funds here like i said forty thousand dollars was gone by in eighteen days by february twenty eighth of two thousand and six four months later his count held one hundred seventy five dollars now the hearing board found in this case that respondent had converted this money that he was supposed to hold in escrow and that he could make all the money and that he failed to pay the money back in a timely manner because what happened was in august of two thousand and six after post trial motions in the case the the judge determined that the entire escrow amount was to be awarded to julie fishman so there was talk about appeals after that time  and what happened was julie fishman started sending respondent letters saying i need my money and respondent didn't respond to those letters he told his client that if his client wanted to take an appeal he would have to get another lawyer but the upshot was that chile fishman filed the petition for rule to show cause in october and then respond and paid the fees paid the escrow money over to her on november eighth i believe of two thousand and six after she had filed the petition he gave her a post dated check written on his operating account he testified at the hearing that on the date he wrote the check he did not have the money in his operating account to make that check clear and in fact he didn't have the money in any of his hero spank accounts he had to go so if he ever wanted to move money out of the county had to transfer it and write a check so he didn't the check was written on his operating account because that's where he transfer the money into now after the money was down two  hundred seventy five dollars in february of two thousand and six there were monies other moneys running through the aisle to account after that time i don't know exactly what he the balance was of the aisle to account on the date that he wrote the check but he needed to get as i stated seventy thousand dollars from another bank account at a different bank in order to make sure that that check would clear now the hearing board found that this was not a dishonest conversion because the hearing board said that respondent did not intend to take the funds from julie fishman in other words he did not intend to deprive her to to take these funds from and therefore the hearing board said this was then a conversion that was caused by sloppy bookkeeping standard well it is it is a manifest weight issue the finding of dishonesty in the hearing boards finding that it should be a question of intent that's it's a manifest weight choose to look at the issue in that regard then certainly that is that is what we deem are what we like to call a mixed question of law in fact where the underlying facts are not in dispute it's a question of whether those facts violate the rule and that's and that's the next question of law in fact i don't know of or clearly erroneous standard of review it's it's kind of in flux in front of our refuse board but what our contention is that the hearing board was wrong in saying that this was  sloppy bookkeeping case because there was no bookkeeping the respondent testified that he didn't balance his accounts his book his paralegal testified that she did not balance the accounts respondent knew when he put money into his aisle to count that his i also account was this place where he parked the money and money washed through the eye all to account in and out of various accounts whenever respondent needed some money for one of his business ventures he or his paralegal or his personal banker would determine what account had money in it and then that money was the money that was used so this was not a situation where was found it was even attempting to follow what was going on in his accounts and made a mistake this was a situation where respondent opened deny all to account and didn't do anything to monitor what was going on so when he took when he agreed with julie fishman's other lawyer to take responsibility for these escrow funds and he directed that they be put in his eye all to account he knew that that once they were in that account no one was going to know what was going on with those funds because no one balanced the accounts and he also knew that h to account as it is other accounts was just a pass through and if there was money available and it was needed it was going to go and certainly that's borne out by what happened in this case in that forty thousand dollars was gone in eighteen days and essentially all of that was gone in four months so we would like this court to reverse that finding on the grounds they out there doesn't have to be an intent to steal funds by a lawyer in order for conversion  well we're not we're not asking you to abandon the santa requirements to enter is nothing more than knowledge of the nature of one's acts or omissions and our position is that respondent knew when he knew that  are just well the the evidence the hearing board found that he did not intend to use the money to take the money and and but our position is that there shouldn't be one's actions and we certainly agree that a point forty four has a site enter requirement but that's i enter a requirement is only knowledge and if you look at the evidence in this case how respondent treated his bank accounts he knew that the bank accounts but all his bank accounts especially his eye all to account the were subject to transfers in and out by himself or more importantly by his paralegal and his personal banker and it got to the point where they didn't even check with him  if something was going on and it was in it came to the personal bankers attention or his paralegals attention that that a client or or someone involved in one of his business transactions needed a payment they would move money and they would pay no it's not well our our contention is that this is an egregious case and there were there's i cited it's five cases in my brief five three year cases all those cases had had similarities with this case first of all all of them involve large amounts of money the smallest amount was twenty five thousand of them the largest amount was one hundred ninety thousand dollars all of those cases were cases in which the conversion was found to have been dishonest all of those cases were cases in which the converted funds were held it by the attorney in a way from the client for us of anshul period of time and you have that also here in the one year and in all of those cases converse lee there was medication offered by the attorneys and in some instances well you mean to pay the funds back when they were converted well it's i don't i don't know that it's worth much i cited in my brief the name of the cases scapes me now but there was a recent discipline and consent case that this court took and approved and one of the it was a conversion case and one of the mitigating factors that was outlined in the converter in the consent petition was that the respondent always had the financial wherewithal to pay the money over and this court approved the consent petition but stated in its order we do so without agreeing with the consent petitions statement is mitigating the fact that he had this money to pay the money will so it certainly makes it it would be much worse as far as effect on the client if the respondent didn't have the money but the fact of the matter is in this case he didn't have the money himself he had to go to a but to a bank account at another bank in which he was not the sole owner and pull seventy thousand dollars out of that account to pay ms fishman now he's just partner testified that that was fine with him but he did not have that you would think that if you would have had the money in any of his accounts at harris bank he would have he would have amassed the money and paid mrs i understand that you certainly disagree with respondents argument that his ability to pay julie fishman militates against a finding of dishonesty i think you say that that misses the point and you think the conversion was complete when the funds were open my funds were spent there my question is is is that did the hearing board in the review board hang their hat on that we've heard a couple of questions about the ability of him to pay did did both the hearing board in the review board hang their hat on the fact that the responded had the ability to pay and since he had the ability to pay there was therefore no dishonesty or did they hang their head and that was others or other factors not the hearing board said that that it found credible respondents testimony that he didn't intend to steal the funds and the hearing board also said th because of the way that he didn't keep his books the hearing board said this was a case of sloppy bookkeeping versus an intent to take the money and i believe that you can read that as the hearing board filtering that i have the money if i need to pay it back into the act but from our perspective that as you said it misses the point it's really a question of of will this court or or will this court make clear what he mistreated believes has has been at least into that war or better than that in a lot of the case law which is if an attorney agrees to hold money for a client and does so in a manner that he has no idea what happens to that money and in fact the probability is that that money is going to be gone but there is a dishonest act in enough itself that's what happened in belgrade that's what happened in up the cases that were approved and confirmed by this court and that's exactly what happened here responded he had no intention of keeping track of that money respondent testified that his idea of holding the money was quote when it had to be paid it would be paid close full that's not how you hold escrow funds for someone else you are under a fiduciary duty under rule one point one five under general fiduciary duty is to take that money put it in a trust account monitor it make sure that it's not being co mingled make sure that it's not being spent and paid over when it's time to pay it over and the administrator has taken the position for years and years that enough attorney says oh i'll hold this money and then his idea of holding the money is i'm not going to pay attention to it and once it's due i'll be able to come up with  that that is not only conversion but that is a dishonesty have to cation of the attorneys fiduciary obligations as set out in rule one point one five reputation or fraud so the idea is that these are not identical concepts if an attorney intends to steal money they had attorney fraudulently converts the money from that from the get go i'll take this money for you and if the attorneys intention is i'm taking this money and i'm leaving town around buying a porsche or something that's fraudulent conversion but if an attorney takes money under a situation where is here he knows that that money is going to disappear we work in all likelihood that money is going to disappear and he doesn't do anything to stop it and his idea is well i'll just pay it out of my funds when it's time to pay it but there is an inherently dishonest act it's not fraud but it doesn't have to be fraud it's dishonest it's a lack of honesty in dealing with the people who give you the money who's expectation when they give you the money is that you are going to abide by your fiduciary duties that you are going to abide by rule one point one five and put it in an account and balance that account and protect those bonds if if we should agree that your definition then i think is is another question is the level of discipline the same in both cases where an attorney intends to convert the money for his own  use back is to a situation that seems to be here where there may be money in other accounts and always the intent to pay it back should we treat them the same as far as the level of the no i think i think if they're arguing conversion meaning the attorney takes the money with an intent to steal it is the worst kind of conversion and deserves the highest level of of discipline and then as you move down the conversion spectrum you you move to cases like this where we contend there is records right there was a recklessness or you can use recklessness conscious indifference but did not rise to the level of roger exactly did not rise to the level of an intent to steal if you want to what do you have to give us an example just a quick who and i gave this example in my brief an attorney who walks into the bank thinking he knows his his various account numbers and he needs a couple hundred dollars to go do something so he takes a withdrawal slip the savings are a ban makes a withdrawal from his client trust account thinking that he's doing so out of his personal account because he forgets the number and misses and transfer this transposes it and he gets the money and there's a conversion right at that point absolutely but then the you know the next week or so his bank statements come he sits down he looks says to himself oh my gosh i took that money from my client's trust account i didn't mean to do that he goes and he and he puts money back there would be a conversion absolutely but that's a mistake and we're not we're not trying to say that any time an attorney makes a mistake and bookkeeping the fifth dishonest there has to be a level of conscious indifference to the attorney's obligations in order to raise that to a level of dishonesty and in our estimation that the evidence shows that in this case in the example you just gave i think you probably think a seminar on professionalism and office management with a shorter duration would suffice in this case those same professionalism in office management cases on unlikely cure the problem is that it well it's hard to say professionalism cases can  account any more so are you are you stuck on the three years or a shorter sanction office manager well we're not stuck on three years we believe that the president supports a three year suspension when you look at the amount of money converted the time that it was how the delay in paying it back and the fact that the person who was injured from this was a mother with two young daughters who in while she was awaiting the funds was borrowing money from her mother to to support her family well the respondent should have paid the funds back beginning in august of two thousand and six that's when the that's when the trial judge entered a final order saying these funds belong to julie fishman now well the julie appeal but she didn't borrowed you said he needed to borrow money from her mother my understanding is yes that but she was borrowing kind of throughout the proceedings but you know she thought after the august sixteenth ordered that the money would be coming to her thank you counsel please a court my name is mark morrow night and the respondent in this matter i think the issues here do reflect what the facts and circumstances that were surrounding this occurrence and that they can't be viewed just in the matter of the fact that there was a conversion or if there wasn't the fact that there was a conversion was admitted immediately upon notification from the air d c that some complaint was been filed and in fact when the review board took on this matter and was considering this it was brought up in there it was not a matter of whether that there was a dispute as to a misconduct but it was too close to the legal conclusion of that conduct what were the facts and circumstances that surrounded that conduct and what would be the appropriate actions in essence that was taking a look at what was a sanction because there was no question that there was a conversion made at the time counsel's stated some of the facts and i think the facts are stated in  that i was supposed to have one really rosen volved in setting it up told my secretaries set up i was out of town at the time it would happen and yes i did use that count as it was sitting dormant to park funds place funds as they came in from various was as to the time of the funds were deposited into that account at the at the time when this deposit was made i was not even involved in the deposit was handled between mr mr sure will was miss fishman's prior attorney transferred the businesses were held within that institution and that there was the authority to move money if an account needed money around and it wasn't that i advocated the bookkeeping of it i just and to keep specific accounting on those accounts they had to keep track of those accounts through taxes and to come in to to reconcile accounts afterwards but at the period of time where these money before during and after i always had a knowledge of generally what was in the accounts and how much money was available testimony given by word gifts and that at no time prior to during or after were there not sufficient funds within that at harris bank of accounts that would have been able to pay these funds off the fact that i transferring from as i don't know what relevance that has the testimony was given that there were always the funds within that family if you will of accounts to make any payments that were necessary is that a proper use  mean that that was clearly stated from the very beginning but the question was was there an intent to deprive miss fishman of her money where their attempt to use that for my own purposes counsel in his brief indicated that you know the information given by mr gibson vice president bank was to somehow sort of assert that if you have funds available only if you're financially have the wherewithal and your fortune off to have money that the court should not find of dishonesty because you know that i can pull it out of somewhere else to pay the funds that is not why that testimony was offered but testimony was offered as there was never known any need for the fisherman funds that it was not done with a dishonest attempt to take funds with her was just done without paying attention to where the funds were there were always forms within those accounts that were moved around by you to mr gibson or might office manager at the time to cover any other counts and put it in put into that account or funded the other count i could have i could have taken this whole thing out by saying don't touch that account any more except somebody else's money in there and i did i could could be office expenses a could be some of the transactions to be the businesses that the councils indicated i want to merge and see homeless shelters and recovery housing so on some of those we may have been refurbishing a recovery home or there's always a possibility in my frame of reference was there based on the budgets that we had based on the applications that i knew were outstanding based on the the obligations that you were coming you know there was sufficient funds are always sufficient on s well there's there's a couple things that factually are now incorrect on that in the delay yes the final order was issued in august of two thousand sex immediately in the court which was testimony that was provided at the end my hearing was that this fisherman advised me walking out of there that she was appealing the entire finding so the judge which were not specifically limited to child support issues they also included the asked for coming out at the other funds that were to be distributed mr fishman also advised me that he was immediately going to be appealing this issue so before i walked out of court i was counsel and he was a friend of mine and i knew him so i ended up taking it on at that time so at that point in time before we even left the judge be tars courtroom i was advised that both parties were appealing it and this was subject to other it prior to walking out of court there's a place come up with judge b tar that but it wasn't reflected in any of the records i mean i mean it was just he says he put an order saying distribute the money within three days and i asked walter all parties are going to have a they had a hundred thirteen thousand at one time was in the old days yes it it does where it was shifted from it and that's what i'm good what motivated the ship you we were used you mentioned four hundred seventy thousand dollars you're here this money that you say you have a mental note that one day maybe what was going to be due to one of the parties and the divorce  was the motivation to transfer it out of the i don't think there actually was no motivation involved and that's part of the failure so once the one day this important one day you woke up and said i'm just going to transfer of these mon now to factors i never will make that active decision when it was agreed when i was finally agreed that the funds would transfer i don't think even happened for another thirty days until after that went when it was originally asked to hold i just said no i don't hold funds and it was one of these persistent things in the court and finally i just said fine whatever just contact denise thirty days later mr share w aisle to account because that's the number that denise came so at that point in time i really was not aware that there was one hundred thirteen thousand of somebody else's money that i'd become aware that that money to transfer later yeah i was later told that's all you had to transfer because at some point that money got out of the iowa correct and it went into your family of accounts of her now wanted to probably into the operation account that paid a check that paid so here is it that would have been for roy get some would have had the authority to do that  the banker or also denise would have had the authority to the the banker doesn't say i think i should take this money it was gone but it was the banker had the authority within the family accounts the reason why we used the adult account and again acknowledge that this is not a correct use of the account prior to taking this money and the banker did have the authority that if we were doing something read then putting it directly into an account somewhere else they put it into the aisle to come because it wasn't income it period i'm not talking about this before during and after the before during in effect during the period of time one of the things that is not reflected or was not reflected in the facts given by counsel for the administrators that sometimes the even after the us the account balance exceeded over three hundred thousand dollars i had had a monthly pending balance is one hundred seventy four there were times where the money was in far excess of even the hundred thirteen that was there the the issue is  that i did not properly segregate manage those accounts and i delegate but it wasn't done with the intent or wasn't done with the knowledge there must be some reason on the nice that under your direction or the bank or under your direction of somebody under your direction move money for me i alter account to another account because because the it the operating account which was funding some of these items would run down and they just swept from there and they would reef replenish from one of the other counts depending on where the money was spent and over again if there was a if there was a need to pay something that was paid out of the other accounts that you had checks for the money was moved correct and that's why you said i guess it's not responsible i view reckless as something that was done with an intent this was not done with that intent to be reckless from my standpoint from were i was operating i always knew the funds there was never any question in my mind that those funds were not available that i was asked they said well did you an obvious going to pay whenever it was required to be paid i would pay that those funds w and it wasn't the appropriate use that account but no i guess reckless as if that if i were essentially using it to fund other obligations because i didn't have the funds and hoping i would get funds back to amazing i'm interested  bankers denise just then the bills back rick perry out of your county but generally she would cut the checks as they would come in our c f o from our other organizations what might say we have this coming up we have this fine she would cut the chac she would notify him i got a check going on he would move the money you know with the amount of all the bills yes they were not done with the payment of the bills were not done without my authority or my knowledge she nobody had the ability to write themselves a check for hundred thousand dollars i always knew that they were what they were again it's not a question of you know whether it's just that the fund that the account was not used properly it was not i didn't really intend to take you know i wasn't going to spend ten stealing what is the difference i think the difference is is that it is an intent i mean if if i have if i have an obligation that i'm still pay somebody ten dollars and i don't have ten dollars and i take it off your desk and say don't rob i'm going to put i'm going to put it back and you have no knowledge of it and you have nothing there then you know you're hoping that you can pay that back and you may have good intentions to pay that back but can be that you didn't pay it back i think it was a little difference in his distinguish between the fact that if i have five pots a ten dollars and somebody says i need ten dollars and i just grab this over here and give it to you in a church i say oh i can put that back and over there and i have it there i think it's the frame of mind of who of how you are are you borrowing that money with the intent to pay it back or is it just said it was in a convenient place it puts it really gets down to because even even from the standpoint of from my feelings on this i did not handle that account correctly i brought this all on myself i mean i can't blame denise i can't blame the bank or a kid playing the i'm the one who did it i did not followed the rules as they should have been done but they were not there with any intends to deprive miss fishman of her money they were not done with the intent to borrow that money that the testimony was sort of it was always the money in the accounts in the family concept were readily available to take that money well the same fashion i think that's a matter of what the facts and circumstances are and they do can't come in and look at to work these facts presented to the court or to the hearing board one of the issues that  lost my train of thought were the issues that came into his you know was there the intent to deprive her of her money the delay that was discussed just to shoot us and i don't think we fully answered that or we sort of got sidetracked but the way  point is that once to a time period re and that september thirtieth i intially fishman had a note on my desk said hey we started talking about ok this is what i have in the account and the testimony shows that she kept demanding more money than was in that account that pain was that the time to get the amount to even in the motion to compel she the one issue she lost on that the judge said no i did not rule that the second one he said no you've got to go back and figure out what the amount is it's not the wednesday when she actually got the money on the friday when we were in court the judge said go back and do with this now and i said let's go back to my office will take care of this right now she did not come we made some arrangements to come together on the second day on the saturday we both disagree as to why we did not meet on that day and she every time i gave her was unavailable cracked on the sunday night i called her up and said i'm just going to drop off i was working that nice i'll just drop off a check can we agree on the amount show me what it which you think it s so on the monday morning because it was late when i finished up i dropped off a check with that check i did a complete calculation and i calculated the interest to wednesday said please review what i've done let me know if you agree or you don't or you disagree or what the situation is and we'll transfer the money than that was on my operating count i believe at the period of time i just transfer one hundred fifty one thousand into the i all to account so yes the operating account didn't have money but other fifty one was transferred in seattle to college and yes i believe i did transfer from another account so that the trying to get through to the issue so i sent it with the complete calculation with the interest included for the additional days when i finally did get a response from her on tuesday and she said fine this is the amount can you wire transfer i immediately which she immediately tried to posit the check the next day after receiving the wire transfer so it was a very contentious situation another factor that i do want to clarify is that and it goes to just this question about the testifying to she was borrowing money from us from her mother to buy a house which she described to section eight which was in section eight medicare two years prior to my even having the account or the money or anything else i am not saying that anybody being delayed any bonnet  time is not a factor that should be considered but i think in the mitigating factors it wasn't it wasn't as if you know that she was destitute on the street and probably my from at the time period that i was holding this money and that the tie period of the delay of that money that period of credit two years prior to that i think that was actually brought out in the in the hearing and it's also my pre what would happen if a bill came in the mitigation mitigating factors i think these are different medicating factors there was an intent to do and deprive this fisherman the money and there was an intent to do anything dishonest and i think those are factual based on the circumstances i think the court the first to the hearing board is listening to all the facts and circumstances i do present that i have substantial pro bono activities that this was discounted in the administrators brief saying well yeah but eighty percent is your business and the hearing indicated that eighty percent of my business operates emergency homeless shelters and recovery homes which i do a lot of pro bono for so that eighty percent which doesn't reflect the law firm is a substantial amount and i'm actively involved in my community like in my cod misrule i think all that's in the record in your imus's or something you want to conclude with i mean yes i mean on a personal note i mean i brought this embarrassment on myself i brought this i mean  essentially that there are so many things could have been done differently should have been done differently they weren't with the intent to be dishonest they weren't with the intent to defraud anybody of their money if it were a simple case of taking a look at the dollar amount and forgetting all the facts and circumstances four years ago this could i could if it was up this has been on my mind every day for four years and i realize that that's anybody who's involved in one of these matters and anybody  i'd never thought i'd peer before this court defending myself ever in my entire life but those are the facts i think my medication does not my medication does provide for sanction far less than what was been suggested by the administrator i think my value to the pro bono community is valuable the people that i serve will loose an advocate i could get time freely i don't take it into disrespect i think that from the standpoint of just saying that somebody is not because i make corrections and because i started to make corrections assumes i find found out that i'm not somebody who is valuable for probation or for the court to send a message saying what you did was wrong you need to learn from that and be aware of it i think is unfair to some we're sending the message out don't correct it because you're almost hurting yourself if you do  state after six months of a period of probation that's correct you're asking for three years we are those the the those were small amounts of money in those cases in me more than the conversions were complex in such a short period of time there were a lot of them but the clients never even knew the funds were converted to the bank records show it so there wasn't damage to the client like there was in this case the amounts of money weren't the same the delay wasn't the same we were asking for more in both of those cases and this no well your honor we disagree and here's and here's the upshot there respondent was charged with with not promptly paying over the fines responded admitted that allegation so  the amount of evidence at the hearing on the exact the lady was slight hearing board in its in its decision found a violation found that the funds were not paid over promptly but did not say when it thought the delay started and wanted to end it then i'm sorry problem not necessarily and there's a disagreement between respondent and myself about that one seventy eight to one eighty eight in the transcript is when is where julie says fish fishman talks about borrowing money and  being injured by the fact that she could not get this money in a timely fashion from responded she does carry over a wider area of time but i believe her testimony is specific that after august when the when the court awarded me the funds and respond it was not paying them to me i had to borrow from my mother this was the section eight apartment was a different time but borrowing from her mother and her testimony that that she really needed this money it's my recollection that it was during this delay period and the delay period that respondent now wants to to try crushed it to lay down to a very small period of time but he didn't take the attack before the hearing what he did not object he did not challenge or offer evidence as to that allegation of of misconduct he admitted and so as a result we're left with a hearing board report that is that is less than specific about the delay but the fact adam her husband but certainly when it came down to the amount of interest julie was claiming one twenty one thirty respondent he had one fifteen so respondent could have clearly paid over the one fifteen and then they could have disputed the access but respondent didn't do that so my second point is that we disagree strongly with respondents claimed that his family of account said harris always had the money the evidence doesn't support that the evidence shows that when he paid when he wrote the check on his operating account he took the money from he took seventy thousand dollars of that money from a different bank not here spank a different bank an account that he owned with brian roll and now there was testimony one hundred fifteen thousand but from my perspective that's that's not saying that you have the money that's saying that you have a relationship with your bank such that the bank will make that check go out and come to you for whatever there is missing in that shop so the evidence is that the harris family of accounts did not have the money when he needed to pay the money back and finally recklessness the issue of recklessness came up to justice thomas i believe this was reckless recklessness is conscious disregard for injurious consequences that are either known or should be known to a reasonable person and the way that respondent just now described his eye all to account was that he'd put money in it and then when his operating account went down the money would be swept out of the a account into the operating account till it was spent down and it would be swept that is not how you hold money you know when you put money into an iota account that functions like that that that money is going to be gone and indeed forty thousand dollars in  virtually all of it in four months and from our perspective this court should say that an attorney is not entitled to treat his clients funds like that and if he does sell then he acts dishonest thank