Opinion ID: 2328160
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The trial court's errors regarding the computer altered files

Text: Judge McCrone included the following in his written findings: While the Court is convinced that Respondent made his best effort to disclose the files he had altered or included misinformation in, he was unable to identify certain files. This lack of precise recall leaves room for concern that not all files have been identified. Respondent excepts to Judge McCrone's finding that not all of the [altered client] files have been identified. Respondent contends that this finding is clearly erroneous because [i]t is undisputed that [Respondent] only altered files on the firm's computer system in July and August 2008, and all eight [files] would never have been discovered by the Thalenberg Firm absent [Respondent's] honest disclosure to the firm. Respondent asserts that it was the firm's decision not to search its computer files to ensure that no other files had been altered outside of the July through August 2008 time window. Respondent reasons that Judge McCrone drew upon that evidence to speculate that the firm might not have accounted for all files altered by Respondent. Respondent concludes that [t]he Thalenberg [Firm] chose not to complete a full investigation of its files and Mr. Keiner should not be assigned with speculative findings of the trial court based on what that investigation might have revealed. Given the evidence showing that not all of the firm's computer files were searched, it of course remains theoretically possible that one or more altered files remain undiscovered. We suspect that might be the extent of what Judge McCrone inferred from the evidence. By the same token, the evidence of a less-than-complete search of the computer files allows for no more than a mere theoretical possibility; such evidence is legally insufficient to establish, by the required clear and convincing evidence standard of proof, that Respondent altered additional client files. We therefore sustain that aspect of this exception. Respondent also argues in this exception that Judge McCrone clearly erred in finding that all eight of the client cases he altered were viable. Respondent argues: Mr. Kazmierczak testified that only four of the eight cases were litigated by the Thalenberg Firm, thereby indicating that the non-prosecuted claims were not viable. Judge McCrone, however, could reasonably conclude from the evidence, and he obviously did, that Respondent altered each of the eight files because Respondent believed the cases were viable, and it mattered very little how the firm ultimately decided to handle those cases. We therefore overrule that aspect of this exception.