Title: Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Passyn

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Document:

537 Pa. 371 (1994) 644 A.2d 699 OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. Julia B. PASSYN, Respondent. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued April 6, 1994. Decided July 1, 1994. Reconsideration and Rehearing Denied August 17, 1994. *372 Julia B. Passyn, Philadelphia, for respondent. *373 Barbara S. Rosenberg, Philadelphia, for Office of Disc. Counsel. Before NIX, C.J., and FLAHERTY, ZAPPALA, PAPADAKOS, CAPPY, CASTILLE and MONTEMURO, JJ. FLAHERTY, Justice. This is a disciplinary case in which charges of misconduct have been brought against a Pennsylvania attorney, respondent Julia B. Passyn. The first charge relates to the complaint of an orphans court judge with respect to respondent's dealings with Abraham Brown, who appeared before the judge in an incompetency proceeding. The second relates to the complaint of Doreen Hopkins, a client respondent represented in a real estate transaction. In each complaint, respondent was alleged to have engaged in conduct violating the disciplinary rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility.[1] After lengthy investigation, hearings, and stipulations, the hearing committee filed a report holding that respondent had violated thirteen disciplinary rules and recommending that she be disbarred. Respondent filed exceptions to the report and recommendation, whereupon the Disciplinary Board reviewed the record and heard oral argument on the exceptions. The board substantially adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the hearing committee, though it concluded that respondent violated only ten disciplinary rules. Curiously, the board recommended a sanction of six months suspension in contrast to the disbarment recommended by the hearing committee. The office of disciplinary counsel filed a petition for review pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 207(c)(2), whereupon this *374 court entered a rule to show cause why respondent should not be disbarred. This court conducts its review of attorney disciplinary proceedings de novo and is not bound by the findings of fact made by the lower tribunals. Nevertheless, we are guided by their findings with respect to matters of credibility of witnesses, and we accord substantial deference to the findings and recommendations of the Disciplinary Board. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Christie, 536 Pa. 394, ___, 639 A.2d 782, 783 (1994); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Costigan, 526 Pa. 16, 20, 584 A.2d 296, 298 (1990); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Braun, 520 Pa. 157, 161, 553 A.2d 894, 895 (1989); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Wittmaack, 513 Pa. 609, 614, 522 A.2d 522, 524 (1987); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lucarini, 504 Pa. 271, 275, 472 A.2d 186, 188 (1983); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Eilberg, 497 Pa. 388, 391, 441 A.2d 1193, 1195 (1982). Having reviewed the record in this case de novo, we are satisfied that the findings of the lower tribunals, which are consistent if not coextensive, accurately state the facts of the case, and we adopt the findings of the Disciplinary Board. The board's findings explain the charges brought against respondent. With respect to the Abraham Brown matter: This testimony failed to reveal that: *380 On or about October 9, 1984, respondent turned over cash in the amount of $14,132.52 to Mr. McGarrity [but] retained $460.27 of Mr. Brown's funds on account of claimed fees. Mr. McGarrity requested that respondent release the $460.27 to him but respondent failed to do so. Suit was started by Mr. McGarrity against respondent and this action caused respondent to repay the money to Mr. Brown in 1986. Respondent failed to release Mr. Brown's books and records to Mr. McGarrity as ordered. Under cover of letter dated October 22, 1984 to Judge Jamison and Mr. Rubin, respondent provided an "Account of Funds" held by her as a co-signer to the PSFS joint account during the period February 25, 1983 through September 20, 1984. That accounting: (a) does not conform to Orphan's Court rules, does not reflect dates of receipts and disbursements and does not accurately reflect the transactions involving Mr. Brown's funds; and (b) includes claims for fees which were clearly excessive, unearned, or unauthorized by Mr. Brown. This deplorable account led the disciplinary board to reach a conclusion of law that respondent had violated the following disciplinary rules: DR 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 2-110(B)(4), 5-101(A), 5-104(A), 2-102(A)(5), 9-102(B)(3), and 9-102(B)(4). Violation of these rules involves the board's conclusions of law that respondent engaged in *381 illegal conduct involving moral turpitude; that she engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; that she engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; that she engaged in other conduct that adversely reflects on her fitness to practice law; that she failed and refused to withdraw from employment when discharged by her client; that, without full disclosure, she accepted employment when the exercise of her professional judgment would be or reasonably might be affected by her own financial, business, property, or personal interests; that, without full disclosure, she entered into a business transaction with a client when they had different interests therein and the client expected her to exercise her professional judgment therein for his protection; that in representing her client she knowingly and unjustifiably advanced a claim or defense that was unwarranted under existing law; that she failed to maintain complete records of all funds, securities, and other properties of a client coming into her possession and render appropriate accounts to her client regarding them; and that she failed promptly to pay or deliver to her client as requested the funds, securities, or other properties in her possession which he was entitled to receive. Respondent's representation of a second client, Doreen Hopkins, also involved patently unethical behavior. According to the findings of the board, the following synopsis of the Hopkins matter accurately summarizes respondent's misconduct. In 1984, respondent agreed to represent Doreen Hopkins, a former neighbor, in the sale of her Philadelphia home following her move to California, for a fee of $500, but would waive the fee if Hopkins invested the proceeds of sale with respondent. Respondent prepared a written agreement executed by Hopkins, which permitted respondent to invest $10,000 of the sale proceeds in mortgage bonds paying 18%, insured by Penn Title Insurance Company, evidenced by delivery of the appraisal, title insurance commitment and mortgage bond to Hopkins, and Hopkins could terminate the agreement upon 90 days written notice. At settlement, respondent received a *382 check for $10,000. This she invested in a mortgage, but did not deliver an appraisal, title insurance commitment, or mortgage bond, nor did she maintain complete contemporaneous records of her handling of her client's funds, nor did she notify her client of the disposition of the funds. Seven months later, Hopkins informed respondent that she wished to terminate the agreement. Respondent reminded Hopkins of the 90-day notice requirement, which respondent calculated to run from March 7, 1985 (a month after Hopkins' termination letter). Despite frequent calls and letters from Hopkins, respondent did not respond to Hopkins' inquiries or remit the funds due Hopkins. In August, 1985, respondent paid Hopkins' moving bill, at Hopkins' request, in the amount of $1,788. In October, 1985, respondent sent Hopkins a check for approximately $900, covering interest and a small amount of principal, reducing Hopkins' principal balance to $8,000. For the next six months, Hopkins frequently called and wrote to respondent, without response. In April, 1986, respondent sent a "statement of account" which reflected a principal investment of $8,000 and accrued interest of $960; in the same month Hopkins filed a claim against respondent with the Pennsylvania Lawyers Fund for Client Security. In July, 1986, respondent received notice of the claim with said fund and another letter from Hopkins requesting return of her investment together with an accounting. Respondent then wrote promptly to the lawyers fund for client security, misdating her letter June 24, 1986 (before the fund notified her of the claim), received by the fund on July 28, 1986. In the letter, she made false and misleading assertions concerning her stewardship of Hopkins' investment. She also misdated a letter to Hopkins as June 24, 1986 (a month before it was sent) in which she made false statements regarding Hopkins' investment and promised to repay Hopkins' investment by July 31, 1986. For months thereafter, Hopkins sent frequent letters to respondent reminding her of her promise, without result. *383 It was not until November 21, 1986, twenty-one months after Hopkins' 90-day termination notice, that respondent repaid the principal and interest due Hopkins. These findings also formed the basis for the conclusion that respondent violated the disciplinary rules detailed above. In discussing and evaluating these violations, the disciplinary board parted company with the hearing committee, recommending a six-month suspension rather than disbarment. Factors cited by the disciplinary board for lenity included the interweaving of roles by respondent, as attorney and as real estate manager and investor, whereby it was "not always clear which role respondent was engaging in at various times," and the board's belief "that at the time Mrs. Passyn made investments on behalf of Mr. Brown and Ms. Hopkins, she believed that she was acting in her real estate investment capacity rather than her capacity as an attorney." The board also found it "understandable that Mrs. Passyn was reluctant at first to turn over Mr. Brown's funds to Mr. Rubin since Mr. Rubin was identified with Mr. Brown's daughter and the daughter was the reason that the protective account was created in the first instance." Respondent's failure to return Ms. Hopkins' funds when promised was described as the result of an unfortunate "change in the real estate market" rather than any "personal fault of her own." To justify a six-month suspension, the board also cited its view that this is a case of "attorney misjudgment" rather than "conversion of client money," the fact that "all of the Hopkins money was returned with interest after the sale of the investment property," and "the strong character testimony presented on behalf of Mrs. Passyn." In determining appropriate discipline in this case, we diverge from the view of the disciplinary board, despite the deference we accord its recommendations. The justification that respondent was wearing two hats is no justification at all. It is an attorney's responsibility to differentiate between actions performed as an attorney and actions performed in another capacity; services undertaken as an attorney are subject to the code of professional responsibility regardless of *384 other roles the attorney may assume. Misconduct cannot be excused merely because an attorney is confused by pursuits in addition to those of a lawyer. See Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Ewing, 496 Pa. 35, 45-46, 436 A.2d 139, 144 (1981), wherein we found this argument to be "without merit": Moreover, respondent blatantly dishonored her obligation to repay Hopkins' investment; her promise was not conditioned on a static real estate market or her convenience in selling mortgaged property, but only on 90 days written notice. It is no excuse that Hopkins finally received all of her money with interest, for it was eighteen months late, and only after the intervention of the fund for client security. See Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Knepp, 497 Pa. 396, 403-04, 441 A.2d 1197, 1201 (1982) (restitution made by attorney after investigation commenced by Office of Disciplinary Counsel is not a mitigating factor). No amount of character testimony will overcome the fact that respondent lied to her clients, the lawyers fund for client security, and the court of common pleas. See Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Holston, 533 Pa. 78, 82-84, 619 A.2d 1054, 1056-57 (1993) (strong condemnation of "lack of veracity to judicial authorities because such conduct undermines the integrity of the very process that an attorney swears to uphold"; disbarment the appropriate sanction). Numerous other instances of "misjudgment" and misconduct, together with respondent's two prior disciplinary board encounters (resulting in a private reprimand in 1978 and an *385 informal admonition in 1988), combined with the most serious ethical violations in the Brown and Hopkins matters, necessitate disbarment. The rule to show cause why respondent should not be disbarred is made absolute. Julia B. Passyn is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in this Commonwealth. It is further ordered that she comply with Pa.R.D.E. 217 and pay all costs of these proceedings. MONTEMURO, J., is sitting by designation as Senior Justice pursuant to Judicial Assignment Docket No. 94 R1801, due to the unavailability of LARSEN, J., see No. 127 Judicial Administration Docket No. 1, filed October 28, 1993. [1] By order dated October 16, 1987, this court adopted the Rules of Professional Conduct effective April 1, 1988, stating: "The Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted hereby, do not apply to professional misconduct occurring on or before March 31, 1988. Such misconduct shall be governed by the present Code of Professional Responsibility, which is continued in full force and effect as grounds for disciplinary action, as if this order had not been adopted."