Opinion ID: 2433171
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the payton matter

Text: Respondent and Howard Becker were associated in the practice of law from 1987 until April of 1990. Mr. Becker assisted respondent in his practice while developing a practice of his own. In July of 1988, Mr. Becker filed a personal injury action in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois on behalf of Douglas Payton against the City of Matoon, Illinois. Mr. Becker was the only attorney of record in the case. On or about April 10, 1990, respondent and Mr. Becker ended their association. Respondent ordered Mr. Becker to vacate the premises. Mr. Becker did so and took the Payton file with him. On April 27, 1990, Mr. Becker settled the Payton case and notified the court of the settlement. The court entered a dismissal on the same date. A few days later, respondent filed a document dated April 27, 1990, entitled Withdrawal of Appearance. The document stated that Mr. Becker was withdrawing as counsel for Mr. Payton and that respondent remained as counsel. The document was purportedly signed by Mr. Becker. Respondent was not admitted to practice in the court. Mr. Becker, upon learning that respondent had filed the withdrawal of appearance, complained to the Honorable Richard Mills, Judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, that respondent had forged his name on the withdrawal of appearance. Judge Mills conducted a contempt hearing at which respondent admitted having executed and filed the document. Judge Mills found respondent guilty of criminal contempt for filing a false and fraudulent pleading, thereby obstructing justice. See In re Oberhellmann, 748 F.Supp. 1344 (C.D.Ill. 1990), rev'd sub nom., United States v. Oberhellmann, 946 F.2d 50 (7th Cir.1991). The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, reversed, finding that the government failed to meet its burden of showing that the filing of the document caused an actual obstruction of justice. The court nevertheless found respondent's action improper and recommended that Missouri disciplinary authorities investigate respondent's conduct. See United States v. Oberhellmann, 946 F.2d 50 (7th Cir.1991). The informant charged in Count V of the information that by signing Mr. Becker's name to the withdrawal of appearance and filing the document with the federal district court, respondent violated the following rules: Rule 3.3(a)(1), which prohibits a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal; and Rule 8.4(c) and (d) which provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation or to engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Respondent concedes that he filed a withdrawal of appearance purportedly signed by Becker. Respondent asserts, however, that he had implied authority to sign and file the document. His assertion is not supported by the facts. Upon leaving the firm, Mr. Becker withdrew from respondent's cases. Mr. Becker testified that he may have authorized respondent's secretary to withdraw his appearance in any of respondent's cases which he overlooked upon his departure. In spite of the fact of Becker's authorization to show his withdrawal on some cases, it is not plausible that respondent believed that Mr. Becker overlooked the Payton case. Respondent testified that Mr. Payton was his client, not Becker's, and that Mr. Becker had wrongfully taken the file from the office. Under these circumstances respondent's argument is not credible. [1] Respondent violated Rules 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4. The informant charged in Count VI of the information that in filing the withdrawal of appearance respondent violated Rules 5.5(a) and 8.4(a). Rule 5.5(a) provides that a lawyer shall not practice law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction. Respondent concedes that he was not admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois as required by Rule 1 of that court. He contends, however, that he did not actually practice law in that court because no case was pending when he made the filing. Although respondent may avoid application of Rule 5.5(a) to his case because of the mistiming of the filing of the forged document, he clearly violated Rule 8.4(a). An attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct constitutes misconduct. The evidence clearly shows that respondent attempted to practice law in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois without having been admitted to practice there. Respondent violated Rule 8.4(a).