Opinion ID: 2287961
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Respondent's borrowings from Berney.

Text: Respondent admittedly became indebted to Berney in 1962 and 1963 for substantial sums of money. The indebtedness was recast on several occasions, but respondent was never able to make good on the terms of payment. Finally Berney retained another attorney who sued respondent in a civil action and obtained judgment against respondent for some $15,800 plus interest and costs. No part of the judgment has been paid. The Committee found that respondent was derelict in the duty and obligation he owed his client in engaging in financial transactions, and abused the trust and confidence reposed in respondent by his client. We find it unnecessary to set forth the factual details of the numerous transactions involved. The basic borrowings are ten or more years old and relate to the ill-fated mortgage company venture. As we noted in considering the first charge of the presentment, respondent was handicapped in defending his position by the lapse of time, loss or destruction of records which once existed, and the frailty of memory. It is not clear that Berney was a trusting client rather than the sophisticated investor which respondent claims he was. Berney had invested $10,000 in the mortgage company. Berney's subsequent loans to the company (guaranteed by respondent), or to respondent for company purposes, were used to bolster the company's financial position. Actually Berney testified that he did not regard the negotiation of the finances as unethical on respondent's part. His complaint was that respondent defaulted on his promises to repay and had also stopped payment on repayment checks. (Respondent stopped payment because of a lack of funds.) In short, at this late date the record is unclear as to whether respondent abused the attorney-client relationship and the trust and reliance which a client places in an attorney.