Opinion ID: 2257566
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Ms Tyner's Conduct [17]

Text: In his second exception, Respondent argues that the hearing court erred when it found that Respondent violated Rules 5.3(c) and 8.4. Respondent contends that he did not assist or induce Ms. Tyner to notarize Mr. Jenkins's power of attorney. Respondent asserts that no fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation was involved on his part, and his conduct was not prejudicial to the administration of justice. According to Respondent, although Ms. Tyner's conduct was improper, the client's directive was carried out as required. The hearing court held that Respondent violated Rule 5.3(c), because he knew Ms. Tyner, as Respondent's legal assistant, was under his supervision, and expected to notarize the power of attorney for Mr. Jenkins, who was not actually present at the moment of notarization. The judge found that Respondent failed to take remedial action and stop Ms. Tyner. Therefore, he violated Rule 5.3(c) and Rule 8.4. A review of Respondent's testimony reveals that he prepared a Power of Attorney which included a notary statement: PETITIONER: Had you called and asked to determine whether or not you could bring a notary? Did you have any experience doing so? RESPONDENT: I had no experience in doing so. PETITIONER: When you got the power of attorney signed and you brought it back to your office, what did you do with it? RESPONDENT: I gave it to my assistant Rosalyn T[yner].     PETITIONER: And did you ask her to do anything with it? RESPONDENT: I asked her to notarize it. Testimony of Ms. Tyner: PETITIONER: Okay. And who asked you to notarize that document? MS. TYNER: Attorney Ward. Cross-examination of Ms. Tyner: RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: Now have you been trained as a notary only to sign documents in the presence of the individuals who come into your actual physical presence? MS. TYNER: Yes. RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY: Why was this different? MS. TYNER: Well, Mr. Jenkins was incarcerated. Attorney Ward had to take the power of attorney down there[,] to my understanding and requested me to take care of it. [sic] So I thought it was appropriate to do at the time. (Emphasis added.) We agree with the hearing court that Ms. Tyner was neither induced nor forced by Respondent to notarize the power of attorney outside the presence of Mr. Jenkins. The inappropriate conduct, however, was Respondent's failure to supervise his assistant under the circumstances. Respondent's directive to Ms. Tyner to take care of it did not insulate Respondent from responsibility for Ms. Tyner's wrongdoing. In the present case, Mr. Jenkins was incarcerated and he signed the power of attorney in the presence of Respondent. Ms. Tyner was not present during the signing. In deferring to Ms. Tyner to take care of it, Respondent improperly delegated to his assistant a task he knew or should have known could not have been honestly completed without Mr. Jenkins's actual presence before a notary. Although the evidence is not sufficiently clear and convincing to support a finding that Respondent intentionally misrepresented the facts, the evidence is sufficient, pursuant to the same standard, to support a finding that he violated Rule 5.3 in ordering his assistant to obtain the notarization of a document where the signer was not present. Respondent's second exception is overruled.