Title: Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cashman

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

629 P.2d 105 (1981) OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. John Henry CASHMAN, Jr., Respondent. No. 7887. Supreme Court of Hawaii. June 3, 1981. Daniel G. Heely, Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Gerald H. Kibe, Asst. Disciplinary Counsel, Honolulu, for petitioner on the motion. Before RICHARDSON, C.J., and OGATA, MENOR, LUM and NAKAMURA, JJ. PER CURIAM. On May 27, 1981, this Court issued an Order immediately disbarring John Henry Cashman, Jr., (Respondent), from the practice of law. That Order stated that an opinion would thereafter be filed. This opinion is in accordance with that Order. The instant matter comes before this Court upon disciplinary proceedings instituted pursuant to Rule 16.13 (Attorneys Convicted of Crimes), Rules of the Supreme Court. On December 21, 1979, Respondent was convicted by guilty plea in the Superior Court of the State of California on two counts of the felony offense of grand theft. On June 26, 1980, this Court ordered, upon motion of Petitioner, that Respondent be immediately restrained from the practice of law in Hawaii based upon his California felony conviction. Respondent's case was then, in accordance with Rule 16.13(c) of this Court, referred back to the Disciplinary Board of the Hawaii Supreme Court (hereinafter Disciplinary Board) for further proceedings. On November 25, 1980, a hearing was held before a three-member hearing committee of the Disciplinary Board for the sole purpose of determining the extent of discipline to be imposed. Rule 16.13(c), Rules of the Supreme Court. Respondent was present and testified on his own behalf at that hearing. The hearing committee thereafter submitted a report to the Disciplinary Board setting forth its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation. The most pertinent portions of the hearing committee's report are as follows: The Disciplinary Board considered the hearing committee's report on February 20, 1981. Petitioner had duly notified Respondent of that Disciplinary Board meeting, but Respondent filed no material with the Disciplinary Board in opposition to the hearing committee's report and he failed to appear before the Disciplinary Board. The *107 Disciplinary Board voted unanimously to adopt the hearing committee's findings, conclusions, and recommendation for the disbarment of Respondent from the practice of law. On February 23, 1981, Petitioner filed with this Court the Disciplinary Board's Report and Recommendation for the Disbarment of Respondent from the practice of law. On the same day, Petitioner mailed a copy of that Report and Recommendation to Respondent. Respondent had sixty days from the date of filing with this Court of the Disciplinary Board's Report and Recommendation within which to file an Opening Brief. See Rule 16.7(c) Rules of the Supreme Court. Although Petitioner wrote to Respondent on February 24, 1981, and again on March 12, 1981, advising Respondent of the 60-day period within which an Opening Brief must be filed, Respondent failed to file any such Opening Brief. Petitioner therefore submitted the instant motion for the disbarment of Respondent from the practice of law. Based upon the factual findings and conclusions of law set forth in the Disciplinary Board's Report and Recommendation, which remain unchallenged by Respondent, it is our determination that Respondent must be disbarred. As heretofore described, the instant matter involves both Respondent's December, 1979, grand theft conviction, as well as his subsequent conviction in July 1980, of the misdemeanor offense of practicing law without a license. Both convictions took place in the State of California and resulted from Respondent's entering pleas of guilty. As found by the hearing committee and the Disciplinary Board, those convictions by guilty plea were "final" for purposes of Rule 16.13 and, as such, constituted conclusive evidence of Respondent's commission of the criminal offenses. Rule 16.13(b), Rules of the Supreme Court. In explaining his conduct with regard to the misappropriation of his client's funds, Respondent's statements before the Disciplinary Board's hearing committee contained nothing in the way of mitigation or extenuation of the charges filed against him. In testifying before the hearing committee, Respondent alluded to financial strains associated with his law practice and with his having expanded that law practice too soon, thus building up "too large of an overhead." However, other than so mentioning the financial difficulties which caused him to use his clients' monies for his own benefit, Respondent presented no evidence of mitigation. He plainly stated that he had no drinking or gambling problems and that his marriage although strained has remained intact. He indicated that he simply used his clients' funds to pay his own creditors. In light of these circumstances, there is only one result which can be reached disbarment. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith, 62 Haw. 467, 617 P.2d 80 (1980); Disciplinary Board v. Kim, 59 Haw. 449, 583 P.2d 333 (1978). Respondent's conduct in misappropriating the funds of his clients violates the most basic rule of professional responsibility and requires the severest disciplinary sanction. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith, supra. This Court has in several recent cases upheld and reinforced the strict standard to which attorneys must be held in handling clients' monies. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith, supra; Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Johnson, 62 Haw. 95, 611 P.2d 993 (1980); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. DeMello, 61 Haw. 223, 601 P.2d 1087 (1979); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Hitchcock, S.C. No. 7222 (Order filed April 25, 1979); Disciplinary Board v. Kim, supra; Disciplinary Board v. Manning, S.C. No. 6895 (Order filed April 28, 1978); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Benson, S.C. No. 5939 (Order filed August 29, 1975). As stated in Disciplinary Board v. Kim, supra, 59 Haw. at 453, 583 P.2d at 336: (Citations omitted). Other courts have imposed the most severe sanction upon attorneys convicted for theft of clients' funds. In People v. Harthun, 197 Colo. 1, 593 P.2d 324 (1979) (en banc), the respondent misappropriated $32,530.00 entrusted to him for distribution to the parties in a divorce action, and he was thereupon convicted by guilty plea of one count of theft. In disbarring the respondent, the court stated: Id. at 4, 593 P.2d at 326 (citations omitted; emphasis added). In In re Wright, 10 Cal. 3d 374, 110 Cal. Rptr. 348, 515 P.2d 292 (1973) (en banc), the respondent was disbarred based upon his conduct in two cases. In the first case, the respondent had been convicted for grand theft involving $6,532.75 of funds belonging to his clients. A state prison sentence was suspended and the respondent was placed on probation for five years. In the second case, a civil judgment had been rendered against the respondent as a result of his mishandling of the funds of another client, with whom he had engaged in a business transaction. In ordering disbarment, the court noted in part that "[the respondent's] explanation that he was under financial pressure because of his business venture commitments and that he was having financial and domestic problems may explain his actions but they do not excuse his violation of his oath and his duties as an attorney at law." Id. at 382, 110 Cal. Rptr. at 353, 515 P.2d at 297. See In re Abbott, 19 Cal. 3d 249, 137 Cal. Rptr. 195, 561 P.2d 285 (1977) (en banc) (attorney disbarred after pleading guilty to a charge of grand theft arising from his misappropriation of $29,500.00 belonging to his clients.) See also In re Ellis, 12 Cal. 3d 442, 115 Cal. Rptr. 795, 525 P.2d 699 (1974) (en banc) (attorney suspended for five years for conviction of grand theft involving funds of two collection agencies which he managed). The facts in the instant case warrant a no less stringent view of Respondent's conduct. Respondent violated the trust placed in him by his clients by taking their funds and converting them to his own use and benefit. That conduct alone would be sufficient to merit disbarment. However, Respondent exacerbated that misconduct in this case by engaging in yet another further illegal conduct. After voluntarily resigning from the State Bar of California, he knowingly and intentionally proceeded to act as if still licensed as an attorney by filing in the Superior Court of California a pleading bearing his signature as "Attorney for Cross-Complainant". That act resulted in Respondent's misdemeanor conviction for practicing law without a license, for which he was fined and placed on probation. Such a course of knowing, intentional, and flagrant disregard for the law further demonstrates that Respondent is deserving of the discipline recommended by the Disciplinary Board and its hearing committee. Although Respondent's misconduct in the instant case occurred in California and not in Hawaii, that fact in no manner lessens the degree of responsibility which Respondent bears as a member of the bar of this State. Respondent is fully accountable, as a member of this bar, for his improper conduct in California. In re Coleman, 492 S.W.2d 750 (Mo. 1973) (en banc) (attorney who was member of both Oregon and Missouri bars disciplined in Missouri for misconduct which occurred in Oregon and *109 which led to his resignation from the Oregon bar); see Alaska Bar Association v. Benton, 431 P.2d 146 (Alaska 1967) (attorney disbarred in Alaska for conviction upon guilty plea in State of Washington for grand larceny). Finally, as set forth in the hearing committee's findings, Respondent was previously disciplined in Hawaii following his suspension in California for commingling a client's funds with his own funds. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. John Henry Cashman, Jr., S.C. No. 6422 (Order filed May 2, 1978). In that case, Respondent was ordered suspended here for thirty days. The hearing committee in the instant case specifically concluded and the Disciplinary Board agreed that irrespective of Respondent's prior discipline in Hawaii, the facts of the present matter are sufficient to mandate the disbarment of Respondent. We agree. For the reasons stated herein, this Court has issued its Order disbarring Respondent from the practice of law in Hawaii.