Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC REPORTER. 

Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, 

303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email 

corrections@akcourts.us. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA 

In the Disciplinary Matter Involving 

MELINDA D. MILES, 

Respondent. 

) 

) Supreme Court No. S-15366 

ABA File No. 2010D144 

O P I N I O N 

No. 6975 – December 12, 2014 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Appeal from the Alaska Bar Association Disciplinary Board. 

Appearances: John M. Murtagh, Anchorage, for Respondent. 

Louise R. Driscoll, Assistant Bar Counsel, and Stephen J. 

Van Goor, Bar Counsel, Anchorage, for Alaska Bar 

Association. 

Before: Fabe, Chief Justice, Winfree, Stowers, and Bolger, 

Justices. Maassen, Justice, not participating. 

WINFREE, Justice. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

An attorney misappropriated a deceased client’s funds — rightfully 

belonging to the decedent’s estate — and hid this misappropriation through deception 

while providing legal services to the estate’s personal representative. Throughout more 

than three years of disciplinary proceedings, the attorney maintained that the funds had 

been gifted to her and that she was following the decedent’s wishes in deceiving the 

estate. The Alaska Bar Association’s Disciplinary Board found that no gift had been 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

intended or accomplished and that, among other violations, the attorney committed the 

criminal act of theft, misappropriation, or wrongful conversion. The Board recommends 

that we disbar the attorney. After independently reviewing the record, we agree with the 

Board and impose the recommended sanction. 

II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS 

Like many disciplinary matters, this case is fact-specific. We therefore 

outline the facts in detail. 

A. Melinda Miles And The Moren Brothers 

Melinda Miles was admitted to the Alaska Bar in 1989. During the relevant 

time period Miles was a sole practitioner handling a variety of legal matters, including 

will preparation and other estate planning and probate services. In 2006 Miles became 

acquainted with Donald Moren, who built a fence for her as a handyman. According to 

Miles they became close friends and she occasionally performed legal work for him. 

In May 2008, for a fee, Miles formed Progressive Diversified Services, 

LLC (Progressive) for Donald. Progressive’s Articles of Organization list Donald as 

both the company’s organizer and its registered agent. The next day Miles signed a 

notarized “Special Power of Attorney” form, prepared on her office letterhead, declaring 

that she, as the “registered agent” of Progressive, appointed Donald as her “attorney-infact to act in [her] capacity to . . . cash and sign checks, make deposits and withdrawals, 

close the account, and otherwise have sole signatory authority and sole authority to 

manage as he sees fit the Key Bank banking account for Progressive Diversified 

Services, LLC.” The form states that the “rights, powers, and authority” given to Donald 

“shall remain in full force and effect as long as that referenced bank account is open.” 

That same day two bank accounts were opened at KeyBank under Progressive’s name 

— one business checking account with an opening deposit of $15,000, and one business 

savings account with an opening deposit of $100,000. The account signature cards list 

-2- 6975
 
 

 

 

 

Miles as the sole signer for each account, and each card was signed by Miles. On each 

card, between Miles’s name and signature, under the word “Title,” are the handwritten 

words “Registered Agent.” 

About two weeks later Donald signed paperwork removing him as 

Progressive’s registered agent and making Miles the new registered agent. The “Special 

Power of Attorney” form signed earlier by Miles was received by KeyBank in July. 

Later Miles signed, in two places, a new signature card for Progressive’s bank accounts. 

Next to both signatures, in handwriting, Miles is designated as Progressive’s registered 

agent. On this signature card, Donald, as Progressive’s “owner,” is newly added as a 

second signer on the accounts. 

In May 2009 Donald died unexpectedly. He had no will, and his mother, 

Mary, was his sole heir. Donald’s brother, Patrick, had power of attorney to act on 

Mary’s behalf. In early June Patrick contacted Miles because he learned Miles had 

assisted Donald in setting up Progressive, and Patrick wanted assistance being appointed 

personal representative of Donald’s estate in Alaska. 

Miles did not know Donald had died until Patrick contacted her, and she 

immediately began recording the time she spent reviewing Donald’s file and 

communicating with Patrick. On June 11 she recorded time for “[b]ank research.” The 

next day Miles went to KeyBank and wrote herself counter checks for the remaining 

balance in each Progressive bank account: $1,162 from the business checking account 

and $20,072 from the business savings account. Miles then deposited the smaller 

checking account balance into her law office trust account and the larger savings account 

balance into the account of a rental property company she owned. Over the next week 

Miles moved $20,000 from her rental company account to her personal account and 

began spending the money. Miles also changed the mailing address for Progressive’s 

bank statements from Donald’s address to her own address. 

-3- 6975
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The same day Miles deposited the counter checks, she wrote to Patrick that 

she had “done quite a bit of checking into Donald’s affairs” and “wanted . . . to 

memorialize what [she had] discovered thus far.” Setting out a “rough inventory” of 

Donald’s assets, Miles listed the smaller Progressive checking account balance of $1,162 

and other possessions, including Donald’s vehicle, boat, guns, electronics, and storage 

unit of unknown contents. Miles did not mention the Progressive savings account. She 

advised Patrick of a procedure in Alaska for handling small estates, broached the subject 

of billing the estate for her services, and attached an invoice. 

Patrick responded with a request that Miles procure information about 

Donald’s assets, including “[i]nformation from any banks in which Don[ald] had 

accounts.” At the end of July Miles emailed Patrick a list of the items in Donald’s 

storage unit. Patrick responded by email a week later: 

My primary concern at this time is to obtain all information 

regarding Don[ald]’s bank assets. If you are unable to obtain 

[information] from Key Bank or any other bank in which 

Don[ald] had assets . . . , I want to commence action in . . . 

Alaska to effect my appointment as personal representative 

of Don[ald]’s estate. 

Miles responded by email that same day: 

A long time ago I told you about the bank account at Key 

Bank. There is that one account. I do not have the 

information in front of me as I have been in court . . . . I have 

confirmed that there are no accounts at First National, and 

Mat Valley and Denalia Alaska [sic]. This only leaves . . . 

Wells Fargo. . . . I can check that tomorrow . . . . I will let 

you know if [Donald] did not end up closing that account as 

he told me he planned to. It may be where he has additional
 

funds.
 

About a week later an attorney working with Patrick sent Miles an email,
 

stating: “I just wanted to touch base regarding Don[ald]’s estate. . . . Any updates 

-4- 6975
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

regarding other bank accounts?” A few days later Miles wrote a letter to Patrick, stating: 

[T]his is not how I usually investigate a probate. Usually, I 

gather all of the mail, and review all of the bookmarks from 

the decedent’s computer. That way, we know which banks 

. . . to approach. This has been more of a fishing expedition 

. . . . I knew a little about Donald’s finances but not a lot . . . . 

Information from any banks in which Don[ald] had 

accounts: I have checked all of the major banks in the 

Anchorage/Mat Su area. The most uncooperative was Wells 

Fargo. But, I have confirmed that Donald did not have an 

account there anymore. The only accounts at a bank I have 

found is KeyBank. I previously sent you that information. 

I have closed out that account, mainly because after I told you 

the amount in that account an automatic payment for his cell 

[ ] phone came through. 1 (Emphasis omitted.) 

At some point in the next seven months, Patrick retained Alaska attorney 

Nelson Page to assist him with Donald’s estate and obtained information from KeyBank 

about both Progressive accounts. In March 2010 Page contacted Miles about the two 

accounts, asking why the funds were withdrawn, where the funds then were located, and 

the basis of Miles’s authority to write the checks from the accounts. A week later Miles 

responded: 

Not until I pulled Donald’s file did I recall that I was, 

of course, a signatory on his two accounts. One account that 

he wanted to use on a daily basis, and another account, that 

in light of the attorney/client privilege, I will only state that 

he wanted to be certain that the money went to me if anything 

1 The cell phone charge was deducted from the Progressive checking account 

on the day Miles first began billing the estate — for reviewing Patrick’s initial letter to 

her. Miles did not complete the “[b]ank research” for which she billed the estate until 

over a week later. Nine days after the cell phone charge cleared the Progressive 

checking account — the same day Miles removed all of the funds from both Progressive 

accounts — she informed Patrick of the checking account’s balance. 

-5- 6975
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

happened to him. You may or may not know that that 

account even used my social security number, and not 

Donald’s. 

. . . . 

Once I realized that I was the signatory on these 

accounts, I sought legal counsel from an ethical standpoint. 

I at no time or in any way wish to miss-handle [sic] these 

funds. If you think otherwise please let me know. 

Page responded in May that Patrick, as the personal representative of the estate, was 

gathering Donald’s assets and requested that Miles give Page “all property and funds 

from Donald Moren that are in your possession, custody, or control” for later distribution 

under the law. 

Two weeks later Miles mailed Page a check for $1,162. In the 

accompanying letter, Miles wrote: 

Please let me know your position on the bank account that 

Donald held with me as principal and with my social security 

number. The main reason Donald structured that account that 

way was to protect the money from his brothers. He also 

claimed that one day, we would make money in joint 

ventures although that never came to fruition as Donald’s 

time here was cut short. 

Two days later Page responded that the money was Donald’s to begin with and had to 

be remitted to the estate, but Miles could submit to the estate the particulars of any claim 

to the money. Nearly three weeks later, in mid-June, Miles responded: 

I have no intentions of violating my responsibilities as a 

friend nor as an attorney. . . . I am familiar with probate law 

. . . . Donald wanted none of his estate upon his death to pass 

to his brothers. Donald’s intent was to set up a nonprobate 

transfer of any funds in that account to me, and not to his 

family. I was clear that I could not guarantee that outcome 

without a Last Will and Testament. His failure to do that 

additional step before his untimely death does not preclude 

-6- 6975
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

his wishes and intent from being followed, however. 

Moreover, the law on nonprobate transfers supports that 

outcome as well. 

In late June Page responded, “It is apparent that you personally received 

substantial sums from a business account owned by Donald Moren. I have been 

operating under the impression that the funds at issue are still in your trust account. If 

this is not the case, please advise me immediately.” Page demanded documentation 

regarding any bank accounts Donald owned or controlled, including information 

regarding any joint account and any documentation of Miles’s authorization to receive 

the funds. Page stated, “[Y]our correspondence suggests to me that you took the money 

and retained it for your personal benefit . . . .” No further correspondence between Miles 

and Page or Patrick is in the record. 

B. Bar Grievance And Disciplinary Proceedings 

In late July 2010 Patrick filed a grievance against Miles with the Alaska Bar 

Association. Donald’s sole heir, his mother, died in September. Miles responded, 

stating that Donald was “a close and personal friend” for whom she had occasionally 

completed minor legal work for a discounted rate, but never for free, and that when 

Donald died she “did not hear about it right away, because although close personal 

friends, [she and Donald] were not actually running around together, and he hadn’t come 

to visit and chat in over a month.” Regarding the Progressive accounts, she stated: 

In May 2008, Donald asked me to open a bank account with 

me as primary and him as secondary so that he could give 

that money to me and keep his brothers, who[m] he 

understood to be his beneficiaries, from obtaining it. Donald 

told me that he was estranged from, and did not like his 

brothers and did not want them to obtain or inherit his 

money. I told Donald that the correct format would be to 

make a will. He stated that he would rather just open up a 

bank account for our use. I say “our” because he intended me 

-7- 6975
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to have access to this money, and he trusted me. At no time 

did I think this was unethical as Donald was a personal friend 

of mine and did not have any close friends or other family 

members that he would trust to have a joint account with. So 

I opened this account as primary, under my name and social 

security number, and Donald was placed on the account as 

secondary. 

On at least one occasion, I asked Donald to prepare a 

[w]ill, but he would ask how much it cost, then refuse to 

carry through with it. 

. . . . 

There were two accounts at Key Bank, Donald’s 

primary account, and then the account already mentioned 

which contained money that had been gifted to and made 

available to me at Donald’s explicit insistence. I believe 

(although I am not 100% certain) that Donald’s primary 

account was in his name as the primary signator, and that I 

was secondary. The second account was in my name and 

under my social security number, and the money in it had 

been gifted to and made available to me by Donald. I never 

solicited this gift from Donald; it was his idea to do this, and 

I agreed, albeit reluctantly, although I was appreciative of his 

generosity and kindness. 

I disclosed the first bank account to Patrick 

immediately. I did not disclose the second account as I 

considered it mine, and the moneys in it to be mine. . . . I 

have kept [the money]. 

. . . [M]y belief is that Donald gave me the contents of 

the bank account when he expressed his intent that it was 

available to me to spend and that I should use it if I wanted. 

Thus, I have not felt it appropriate, and in fact it would 

contravenes [sic] Donald’s fervent wishes which he 

expressed to me, for that money to go into his estate to be 

divided by his estranged family. 

-8- 6975
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Miles also described Patrick to be “as difficult and menacing as Donald had previously 

described him” and stated that she had done only “non-lawyer-specific tasks” for Patrick, 

like inventorying a storage unit and collecting information on Donald’s account and 

debts. Finally, Miles asserted that during the summer of 2009 she “made several 

attempts to obtain ethical guidance on these matters,” by (1) speaking “in detail” with a 

“good friend and ethical attorney, Jill Dean,” and (2) attempting to speak with a 

professor in Seattle, Washington, whose information was on the Alaska Bar website, but 

with whom she had “only played phone tag.” Miles also asserted that she had not 

intended to violate any ethical guidelines. 

In late October 2011 bar counsel filed a petition for a formal hearing before 

an area hearing committee. The petition alleged that Miles committed the following 

eight counts of misconduct, misnumbered as one through six, eight, and nine: 

1) representing Patrick regarding Donald’s estate despite Miles’s own personal 

conflicting interest in Donald’s assets, in violation of Alaska Rule of Professional 

Conduct 1.7(a)(2); 

2)	 acquiring a pecuniary interest in her client, Donald’s, Progressive bank accounts 

without following required client-protective procedures, in violation of 

Rule 1.8(a); 

3)	 acquiring a possessory or other pecuniary interest in the Progressive savings 

account which was adverse to her other client, Patrick, in violation of Rule 1.8(a); 

4)	 failing to hold the property of a client or other third persons — the Progressive 

savings account funds — separate from Miles’s own property, when she deposited 

those funds into her own account, in violation of Rule 1.15(a); 

5)	 failing to promptly notify those with an interest in the Progressive savings account 

funds when they came into her possession, account for those funds, and deliver 

them to those entitled to the funds, in violation of Rule 1.15(d); 

6) 	 failing to hold the disputed Progressive savings account funds separate from other 

funds until entitlement to the funds had been determined, in violation of 

Rule 1.15(e); 

-9-	 6975
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8)	 committing the criminal act of theft, misappropriation, or wrongful conversion, 

in violation of Rule 8.4(b); and 

9)	 engaging in conduct involving dishonesty and deceit by transferring the 

Progressive savings account funds into her own account and failing to disclose 

that transfer to her client Patrick, in violation of Rule 8.4(c). 

Miles admitted the allegations in counts one and six, and the Bar ultimately did not 

pursue counts two and nine. 

In February 2012 Miles submitted an affidavit reiterating her claim that the 

funds were her property because Donald previously had stated his intent to gift the 

contents of the savings account to her. Miles also stated that Donald “possessed equal 

or superior knowledge about his intent and plan so [Miles] did not require him to put his 

understanding of his plan in writing, nor did [she] advise him to review his plan with 

independent counsel.” Miles also explained that her “statements to Patrick [while 

representing him] . . . were impacted by Donald’s intent that he wanted none of his estate 

. . . to pass to his brothers.” 

In April, just prior to her first disciplinary hearing before the Area Hearing 

Committee, Miles finally tendered to Donald’s estate $20,072, the amount she had 

withdrawn from the Progressive savings account. This was nearly three years after she 

placed the money in her own account and nearly two years after the estate’s initial 

demand for the funds. After tendering the money to the estate, Miles did not present the 

estate with a claim to any of it. 

For reasons not relevant to our decision, the Area Hearing Committee held 

two hearings. We describe the relevant testimony without differentiating between those 

hearings. 

Regarding her friendship with Donald, Miles testified that after her car had 

been stolen by a former romantic partner he had helped her feel safe by driving her home 

and going with her to her office for two to three days as her “body guard.” Miles stated 

-10-	 6975
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

that Donald also “staked out” her former partner’s house for a few mornings and helped 

Miles find a new car. Miles stated that she “probably had a crush” on Donald and that 

he had offered to buy her a $600 ring, but she would not let him and instead bought it for 

herself. Miles stated that although she previously had indicated that she interacted with 

Donald approximately 15 to 20 times over the course of their friendship, there may have 

been additional occasions when Donald “would just stop by . . . and [she would] be too 

busy.” 

Regarding her business relationship with Donald, Miles testified that 

Donald was “entrepreneurial minded” and had a lot of “outlandish ideas,” and that 

although Donald suggested they “could be in business together,” she never did so 

because she was “leery of some of his ideas.” Regarding Progressive, Miles stated that 

she “tried really hard to make a line between” Donald as a friend and Donald as a client, 

so she billed him about $250 to form the company. 

Regarding the bank accounts, Miles testified that Donald had asked her: 

“If I set up the bank account with you, with rights of survivorship, does that mean my 

brothers won’t get any of [the money]?” Miles stated that she had told Donald she was 

not sure and that she told him several times he should make a will, but he replied that he 

did not know who his beneficiary would be or with “flippant responses” such as, “I don’t 

plan on having any money when I die.” Miles stated that she then believed Donald had 

set up the savings account as a joint personal bank account with a right of survivorship 

in her favor. 

Explaining why she had never noticed that the savings account was not, in 

fact, a joint personal bank account with a right of survivorship and was instead 

Progressive’s business savings account, Miles testified: 

Donald said that he wanted to set up two accounts. One, that 

he said I should divulge to his brothers, if anything happened 

-11- 6975
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to him; and one, that he wanted to keep from them. . . . [H]e 

would use one, and then the other one we would keep money 

in. And he also said, . . . [if] we do a business, I would have 

access to that money, like a seed money. Or, if I needed 

anything. . . . [H]e wanted to think of himself as kind of 

helping to take care of me. 

. . . I didn’t . . . go to Key Bank and open up the 

accounts. I sat in my office and I would be working, and 

Donald came in and said, “Sign.” And I felt that my 

responsibilities, ethically, were not to be involved in anything 

like that. So it wasn’t like I sat there and reviewed it . . . . 

[A] friend says, “Sign. I’m gonna set up a joint bank account 

with you, with rights of survivorship. Sign.” So, I signed. 

. . . [W]here it says, . . . “Registered agent,” . . . it is 

handwritten later. That wasn’t on there when I signed. . . . 

. . . [W]hen I did that [P]ower of Attorney, . . . giving 

Donald the right to use the account, I thought I was the 

primary and he was the secondary. And, for some reason, 

they needed something like that. And he told me to put in 

there, . . . you’re a registered agent of Progressive 

Diversified. And . . . I just thought it was him being selfimportant, I guess. 

And, I was, like, “Okay. If that’s what the bank wants, 

there you go. Good bye.” 

. . . . 

. . . [With the later signature card, it was] the same 

thing. . . . He said something like, “The bank screwed up . . . 

[a]nd we need to sign again.” 

And, again, I felt like my responsibility, ethically, is 

not to be involved in that. . . . So, I’ll help you, you’re a dear 

friend. So again I sign, but, I thought it was . . . just rights of 

survivorship. Joint owners with rights of survivorship. I 

thought I was the primary, which wa[s] why I had to give him 

that power of attorney. 

-12- 6975
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . . . 

I felt like, since I had to do the Power of Attorney, that 

was really my money. But I would never take something 

from Donald that he wanted. 

. . . . 

. . . I just felt like, as a friend, I shouldn’t be . . . 

[looking at the account paperwork], and to stay away from 

the gift, I shouldn’t be doing that. 

When asked why she never withdrew any money from the savings account 

during Donald’s lifetime, Miles responded: 

[I]f we would have done a business deal, I would have. And 

I know that if I . . . [were] in financial straights, I could have 

. . . . [B]ut . . . [Donald] used to make a lot of money. . . . 

And then he was disabled. . . . [T]he time he got that hundred 

thousand dollars, I think he owed a lot of money . . . . He 

bought a brand new truck. . . . I would never just spend 

Donald’s money. But, I think if I ever wanted it or needed it, 

I could have had some. 

When asked why Donald wanted to gift the money to her, in particular, she 

testified that Donald thought they someday would do business together. Miles also 

thought she “was probably [Donald’s] best friend at that time,” though they “didn’t 

necessarily socialize after hours” because Miles had three young children. She stated 

that Donald was charismatic and had many friends, but she also “felt like, in many ways, 

he was kinda lonely.” Miles stated that she attended neither the barbeque where Donald 

had died nor the later celebration of Donald’s life. 

Miles also testified that when she started helping Patrick, she did not realize 

he was one of the brothers from whom Donald wanted to keep his assets, and once she 

realized her mistake, she tried to get everything done as quickly as she could. Miles 

stated that Donald said the smaller account was supposed to be revealed to Donald’s 

-13- 6975
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

brother “because [Donald] knew he’d keep looking for money until he found 

something.” Miles further stated: “[S]ince it was my money, I felt like I didn’t need to 

disclose the second account. I felt that legally I didn’t need to disclose the first account 

[either], but I would, because that’s what Donald wanted.” She stated that she did not 

tell Patrick about the second account because she was honoring Donald’s wishes and felt, 

at the time, that she was “taking the high road.” Miles also stated that Donald felt that 

his brothers controlled his mother, so they would get the money in the event of his death. 

Jill Dean, the attorney with whom Miles had discussed her ethical qualms, 

also testified. Dean stated that on more than one occasion during the summer of 2009, 

Miles said she had a joint account with a deceased friend who had been a client and was 

not sure what to do about it. Based upon Dean’s understanding that it was a joint 

account, Dean had advised Miles to “hold onto the money” because she was the 

surviving beneficiary and therefore had the best claim to the money. 

Five character witnesses testified on Miles’s behalf: a rector at her church, 

who had known her for about three years; her career coach, who had acted in that 

capacity for approximately six months; a fellow animal rescue volunteer, who had known 

her since 2005; a friend and fellow dog musher, who had known her since 1998; and a 

former client, who had known her since 2011. The career coach testified that Miles had 

“expressed regret [about] the whole situation,” recognized the “error in judgment on her 

part,” and was working on becoming more detail-oriented. The four remaining witnesses 

testified that Miles had a reputation for truthfulness. 

Two of Donald’s close friends, William O’Brien and Robert Madson, also 

testified. O’Brien stated that he first met Donald in the 1990s and that they were 

roommates when Donald died. He stated that he and Donald hung out and went fishing 

and boating together. He stated that Donald was using the Progressive money to run a 

business selling boats, and that all he could remember Donald saying about Miles was 

-14- 6975
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

that she had helped him form Progressive and he had fixed a fence for her at some point. 

He stated that Miles had never visited their residence, and that he believed Donald had 

only a professional relationship with her. He stated that he did not believe Donald had 

any business ventures with Miles or a close friendship with her. He added that Donald 

was always coming up with business ideas and trying to “enlist” O’Brien to join him. 

When asked whether Donald would give money to Miles, O’Brien stated, “No, I can say 

that I’m positive he wouldn’t do that.” 

Madson testified that he knew Donald for 36 years. He stated that his 

brothers, Donald, and he all grew up in the same small town in Minnesota; they all 

hunted, fished, and vacationed together; and Donald’s mother was Madson’s seventh 

grade teacher. He stated that Donald joined Madson in Alaska in the 1980s, and that 

they hunted, fished, and hung out together. He stated that Donald had quite a few close 

friends, but Miles was not one of them. Madson stated that although Donald had 

mentioned Miles on a couple of occasions because he had “legal dealings” with her, 

Madson had never seen Donald socialize with her, and Madson “[did]n’t even know 

what [Miles] look[ed] like.” He described Donald as “a wheeler-dealer” when it came 

to business and stated that Donald was “real[ly] close” with his mother and “always 

talked about her, and . . . any way . . . he could help her.” He stated that Donald would 

have wanted his money to go to his mother. Regarding Donald’s relationship with 

Patrick, Madson stated, “[Donald] didn’t talk about him much, let’s just put it that way.” 

The Area Hearing Committee found that Miles had committed the four 

remaining contested counts of misconduct described in the petition: counts three, four, 

five, and eight. This included the specific finding that “Miles committed a criminal act 

of theft, misappropriation, or wrongful conversion.” The Committee found “as a matter 

of fact and law that no gift was accomplished by Donald’s purported statement of an 

intent to make a gift of funds to Miles.” It also expressed “reasonable doubt whether 

-15- 6975
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Donald had actually made statements to Miles intending to gift her money through a nonprobate transfer from a joint account” and stated that Miles’s claims regarding such 

statements were “uncorroborated and self-serving.” 

The Committee found “the overall evidence to be clear and convincing that 

by the time Miles withdrew the funds and closed the accounts, she had actual knowledge 

that they were business accounts . . . solely owned by Donald.” It also found that 

“Miles’s testimony that at the time she withdrew the money she believed the account was 

a joint personal account with right of survivorship [was] simply not credible on the 

record before [the Committee].” In fact, “[e]ven if Miles believed that Donald intended 

to open a joint personal account with her, she was immediately — and repeatedly — 

confronted with obvious, and unmistakable evidence that Donald had, in fact, opened 

only business accounts at Key Bank in the name of his solely-owned company . . . .” 

The Committee found “more incredulous [sic] . . . Miles’s claim that after Donald’s 

death, she continued to believe that the Key Bank savings account was a personal 

account, even after she ‘pulled Donald’s file,’ ” remembered that she was a signer on the 

two accounts, “performed ‘bank research,’ ” obtained counter checks from both 

accounts, and disclosed to Patrick the existence of only one account. Ultimately, the 

Committee found: 

Taken as a whole, . . . the record evidence . . . [is] clear and 

convincing that any “mistaken impression” that Miles had 

about the nature of the Key Bank accounts had been dispelled 

by the time she withdrew the funds and closed the accounts 

— that after Donald’s death, Miles had actual knowledge that 

the Key Bank accounts were business accounts in which she 

had no ownership interest. 

. . . . 

. . . Miles knew that the[] funds had not been conveyed 

to her . . . . 

-16- 6975
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When evaluating the proper sanction for Miles’s violations, the Committee 

found that Miles’s misconduct resulted in “at least the potential for serious harm” 

because Miles had “deprived [Donald’s estate] of its major asset” — over $20,000 — 

“for almost three years and could have permanently deprived the [e]state” of that asset 

but for Patrick’s perseverance. Given its finding that Miles’s conduct was knowing, the 

Committee preliminarily concluded that the appropriate sanction for her conduct was 

disbarment. The Committee found only one mitigating factor: cooperation with the Bar. 

The Committee rejected Miles’s argument that “delay in the disciplinary proceedings” 

should be a mitigating factor, and found that the “evidence of Miles’[s] reputation for 

honesty [did] not mitigate the circumstances of the violations committed.” Finally, the 

Committee found that “any mitigating factors [were] more than neutralized by the 

[aggravating] factors . . . [of] dishonest or selfish motive; refusal to acknowledge [the] 

wrongful nature of [the] conduct; substantial experience in the practice of law; and 

indifference to making restitution.” The Committee therefore recommended that the 

Disciplinary Board impose on Miles the sanction of disbarment.2 

The Board adopted the Committee’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, 

and recommendation. 3 Miles appeals the findings that she committed the violations in 

2 Area hearing committees submit written reports containing findings of fact, 

conclusions of law, and recommendations to the Disciplinary Board. See Alaska Bar R. 

12(i)(4). The Board may accept those reports or adopt its own, and may impose 

reprimands or forward its own findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations 

to this court for more serious discipline. See Alaska Bar R. 10(c)(5)-(8). 

3 Three days before the Board held Miles’s October 2013 disciplinary 

hearing, Miles moved to admit the results of a polygraph examination conducted just one 

week prior. The examiner’s opinion was that: 

Miles was truthful when she stated . . . 1) Donald Moren had 

told her the Key Bank account was a joint account with right 

(continued...) 

-17- 6975
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

counts three, four, five, and eight, and requests that we impose the lesser sanction of 

suspension from the practice of law for no more than three years. 

III.	 STANDARD OF REVIEW 

“We independently review the entire record in attorney disciplinary 

proceedings, though findings of fact made by the Board are entitled to great weight.”4 

When the Board’s findings of fact are appealed, “the respondent attorney bears the 

burden of proof in demonstrating that such findings are erroneous.”5 “[W]e ordinarily 

will not disturb findings of fact made upon conflicting evidence.”6 “We apply our 

independent judgment to questions of law and questions concerning the appropriateness 

3	 (...continued) 

of survivorship, 2) she failed to disclose it because she 

believed she owned it, and 3) she did not know until June 12, 

2009[,] that the account was a business account. 

The Board found that “even if the polygraph’s conclusion that . . . ‘[Miles] did not know 

until June 12, 2009[ — the day she withdrew the Progressive savings account funds —] 

that the account was a business account’ is correct, it does not undercut the findings and 

conclusions of the . . . Committee.” We agree with the Board. It makes little difference 

if Miles did not know “until” June 12, 2009, that the account was a “business account.” 

What matters is whether Miles believed on that day — and beyond — that she was 

unquestionably entitled to the money in the account. 

4 In re Disciplinary Matter of Shea, 273 P.3d 612, 619 (Alaska 2012) 

(internal quotation marks omitted); cf. Alaska Bar R. 22(r) (“The Court will review 

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations of discipline made by the 

Board . . . .”). 

5 In re Disciplinary Matter of Rice, 260 P.3d 1020, 1027 (Alaska 2011) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). 

6 Id. (alteration omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

-18-	 6975
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of sanctions.”7 

IV. DISCUSSION 

A. Counts Five And Eight 

Miles’s challenge to the Board’s ultimate finding that she committed the 

violations in counts five8 and eight9 is premised upon her argument that we should 

overturn at least one of the following underlying factual findings: (1) no gift of the funds 

in the Progressive savings account was intended or accomplished from Donald to 

Miles,10 and (2) at the time Miles withdrew the funds from the account, she knew she had 

no ownership interest in them. 

7 In re Shea, 273 P.3d at 619 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 

Alaska Bar R. 22(r) (“The Court will decide . . . the type of discipline to be imposed 

. . . .”). 

8 Count five alleged that Miles failed to promptly notify those with an interest 

in the Progressive savings account funds when they came into her possession, account 

for those funds, and deliver them to those entitled to the funds, in violation of Alaska R. 

Prof. Conduct 1.15(d). 

9 Count eight alleged that Miles committed the criminal act of theft, 

misappropriation, or wrongful conversion, in violation of Alaska R. Prof. 

Conduct 8.4(b). 

10 The Area Hearing Committee found “as a matter of fact and law that no gift 

was accomplished by Donald’s purported statement of an intent to make a gift of funds 

to Miles.” It also expressed “reasonable doubt whether Donald had actually made 

statements to Miles intending to gift her money through a non-probate transfer from a 

joint account” and stated that Miles’s claims regarding such statements were 

“uncorroborated and self-serving.” The Committee added that “Donald never opened 

a joint account with Miles” and that “two of [Donald’s] close friends testified that Miles 

was not [Donald’s] close friend . . . [and] did not socialize with him, and that Donald 

would not have give[n] her any of his money.” Based upon the Committee’s reasoning, 

we treat its finding that no gift was accomplished as a finding of fact that Donald lacked 

donative intent. 

-19- 6975
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To accomplish a gift, “donative intent must be clear, unmistakable, and 

unequivocal.”11 Miles testified that she was “most definitely” wrong in believing that the 

money from the savings account belonged to her. She admitted that she had no 

documentation “beyond the bank accounts” memorializing Donald’s alleged intent to gift 

the funds to her, and that no aspect of the bank accounts expressly entitled her to the 

funds. Miles’s testimony regarding Donald’s alleged “donative intent” is lacking and 

contradicted by the evidence: Miles testified that Donald posed a hypothetical question 

regarding setting up a joint account with her, she answered that he should create a will, 

and he shrugged off that answer. According to Miles, Donald then told her — though 

it is unclear when or in what terms — that he was setting up a joint personal account with 

rights of survivorship in Miles’s favor. Donald instead created business accounts with 

Miles as a signer under her putative authority as the business’s registered agent, had 

Miles sign a “Power of Attorney” form giving him “sole signatory authority and sole 

authority to manage [those accounts] as he [saw] fit,” added himself onto the accounts 

as a signer under his authority as the business’s owner, ran a business using the accounts, 

and spent the majority of the money. Donald’s close friends testified that Donald would 

not have given money to Miles. Miles has therefore failed to carry her burden of proving 

erroneous the Board’s finding that no gift was accomplished.12 

11 Roberson v. Manning, 268 P.3d 1090, 1094 (Alaska 2012). 

12 We note that even if Donald had intended to gift the money to Miles, a gift 

from a client to an attorney is subject to special scrutiny. See, e.g., Alaska R. Prof. 

Conduct 1.8(c); Commentary Alaska R. Prof. Conduct 1.8 (“[T]he doctrine of undue 

influence . . . treats client gifts as presumptively fraudulent. . . . If effectuation of a 

substantial gift requires preparing a legal instrument such as a will or conveyance the 

client should have the detached advice that another lawyer can provide. The sole 

exception to this Rule is where the client is a relative of the donee.”). 

-20- 6975
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Miles next argues we should find she did not possess the mental state 

required for the crime of theft because, even if there actually was no gift, she believed 

Donald had completed a gift to her and she did not know that the funds in the savings 

account belonged to someone else. But it stretches credulity that Miles, having been an 

attorney in Alaska for 20 years and offering legal services in estate planning and probate, 

failed to recognize a single one of the numerous signals that Donald had not, in fact, 

completed a gift to her. Further, Miles’s own actions are inconsistent with her professed 

belief that a gift had been completed: On the day the accounts were opened in her name, 

she prepared and signed the “Power of Attorney” form giving Donald “sole signatory 

authority and sole authority to manage [the accounts] as he [saw] fit,” and she withdrew 

no money from the accounts during Donald’s lifetime. Miles’s explanation that she 

“would never just spend Donald’s money,” but that she thought she could have spent 

some if she wanted or needed to do so, conflicts with her argument that she believed a 

gift to her had been completed and that it was her money. Miles’s assertion that she 

believed both accounts belonged to her also conflicts with her decisions to reveal one and 

hide the other and to never present the estate with a claim of right to the money in either 

account. Miles has therefore failed to carry her burden of proving erroneous the Board’s 

finding that Miles knew the money did not belong to her when she wrongfully converted 

it to her possession. 

B. Counts Three and Four 

Given the egregiousness of count eight and our ultimate conclusion that 

disbarment is the appropriate sanction in this case, we do not need to consider Miles’s 

arguments regarding counts three and four. 

C. Sanctions 

“Our individual examination of [the appropriate sanction in] each case is 

guided but not constrained by the American Bar Association’s Standards for Imposing 

-21- 6975
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lawyer Sanctions[,] . . . the sanctions imposed in comparable disciplinary proceedings,” 

and the Board’s sanction recommendation in this case.13 

“We apply a three-step analysis to determine attorney sanctions.”14 First, 

we examine: (1) the duty or duties violated; (2) the attorney’s mental state regarding 

these violations; and (3) the “extent of the actual or potential injury” involved.15 Second, 

for the misconduct examined in the first step, we determine what sanctions the American 

Bar Association’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions recommend.16 Finally, we 

determine “how aggravating or mitigating factors affect the recommended sanctions,” 

if at all.17 

Miles admitted to representing one client regarding a former client’s estate 

despite her own personal conflicting interest in the former client’s assets and to failing 

to hold more than $20,000 in disputed funds separate from other monies until entitlement 

to the funds had been determined. Miles also failed to promptly notify those with an 

interest in the funds when they came into her possession, failed to account for the funds, 

and failed to deliver the funds to those entitled to them. Most egregiously, Miles 

13 In re Disciplinary Matter of Shea, 273 P.3d 612, 619, 623 (Alaska 2012) 

(internal quotation marks omitted); cf. Alaska Bar R. 16(a) (“A finding of misconduct 

by the Court or Board will be grounds for (1) disbarment by the Court; or (2) suspension 

by the Court for a period not to exceed five years; or (3) probation imposed by the Court; 

or (4) public censure by the Court . . . .”). 

14 In re Shea, 273 P.3d at 622. 

15 See id. 

16 Id. 

17 See id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

-22- 6975
 
 

 

 

 

 

committed the criminal act of theft, misappropriation, or wrongful conversion.18 

In committing the criminal act of theft, misappropriation, or wrongful 

conversion, Miles’s mental state was knowing.19 We agree with the Board that the 

potential injury was great. Miles could have permanently deprived Donald’s estate of 

over $20,000 and withheld the money for almost three years, during which time 

Donald’s sole heir died. Additionally, Miles used her position to attempt to blind her 

current client — the estate’s personal representative — to her theft of one of the estate’s 

major assets. Such a duplicitous act by a member of the Bar, particularly while acting 

in her capacity as an attorney, damages the reputation of the legal profession and the 

legal system at large. 

The American Bar Association’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 

state: “Disbarment is generally appropriate when . . . a lawyer engages in serious 

criminal conduct a necessary element of which includes . . . misappropriation[] or theft 

. . . .”20 We agree with the Board that only one mitigating factor applies in this case: 

cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings.21 This mitigating factor is 

entirely neutralized by the five aggravating factors which clearly apply: dishonest or 

selfish motive, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct, substantial 

18 Because we do not consider Miles’s arguments regarding counts three and 

four, we do not consider those counts in our sanctions analysis. 

19 See AS 11.46.100(1) (“A person commits theft if with intent to deprive 

another of property or to appropriate property of another to oneself or a third person, the 

person obtains the property of another . . . .”). 

20 AM. BAR ASS’N, STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS § 5.11(a) 

(1992). Given that this is the highest level sanction possible, we do not need to review 

the recommended sanctions for Miles’s other misconduct. 

21 See id. § 9.32 (listing mitigating factors). 

-23- 6975
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

experience in the practice of law, indifference to making restitution, and illegal conduct.22 

Given the egregiousness of Miles’s conduct and the aggravating factors involved, we 

agree with the Board that disbarment is appropriate in this case. 

V. CONCLUSION 

Melinda D. Miles is DISBARRED effective 30 days from today. Miles is 

directed that effective today: (1) her court filings shall be limited to notices of her 

impending disbarment and either withdrawals or substitutions of counsel; (2) she shall 

not take any new client matters; (3) she shall take immediate action to close or transfer 

to another attorney her open client matters; and (4) she shall cooperate with the Alaska 

Bar Association to ensure that her open client matters are closed or transferred by her 

disbarment date, including making full disclosure to Bar Counsel of the status of her 

client files. The filing of a petition for rehearing shall not affect the disbarment date, 

although the court will consider any such petition on an expedited basis. In the event 

Miles files a petition for rehearing, the Alaska Bar Association shall respond within five 

days of service of the petition. 

See id. § 9.22 (listing aggravating factors). 

-24- 6975 

22