Opinion ID: 2569124
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Acceptance of wrongdoing with honesty and sincerity.

Text: The Area Hearing Committee majority concluded that Mr. Wiederholt established his acceptance of his past wrongdoing with honesty and sincerity. The majority of the committee found that his witnesses believed him to be sincere in his remorse, and that he now appreciated that he had previously demonstrated an inability to see how his conduct affected others. This Board disagrees. The Board elicited additional testimony from Mr. Wiederholt at the January 25 hearing on the issue, particularly, of the Metcalf matter. The Metcalf matter involved a check issued to the client, Mr. Metcalf, and his attorney, Mr. Wiederholt, for partial attorney's fees awarded to them against the Republican Party. Mr. Wiederholt first became involved in a heated verbal dispute with Mr. Metcalf over the fees, then forged Mr. Metcalf's name to the joint check in order to be in a better position to obtain the fees he believed were owed to him. At this latest hearing before the Board, Mr. Wiederholt was asked how it was he came to forge the client's signature on a check made out to the client and to himself, and how he views his conduct now. Mr. Wiederholt testified that the reason this misconduct occurred was his inability to see a bigger global picture. How my actions affected more than just my relationship between me and Mr. Metcalf. He further testified that [t]he long and the short of it was  is that I  the money wasn't his. The method by which I chose to get it back, to keep it, was what was  that was what was unethical. I don't believe to this day that Mr. Metcalf was entitled to the money. What I should have done is sequester  a fee arb with him, that's what I should have done. It was a quick and efficacious way, or so I thought, to deal with it. Mr. Wiederholt's testimony on this subject, taken together with other statements he has made on this and other subjects over the history of this case, leads the Board to conclude that Mr. Wiederholt has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that he accepts his wrongdoing with honesty and sincerity. His statement that the problem arose from his inability to see the bigger picture illustrates his present inability to see, or to articulate, the wrongness of his conduct. One of the issues in the Metcalf matter was that the dishonest and aggressive manner in which he dealt with the fee dispute was aimed not at an opposing party but at his client, to whom he owed the greatest ethical duty of loyalty. The harm done in that instance was not so much the global picture or how his actions affected more than just [the] relationship between [him] and Mr. Metcalf. His conduct was directed at his client, whom he threatened and from whom he attempted to obtain money by fraud. [7] The original hearing committee concluded that the money in question was not Mr. Wiederholt's, but Mr. Metcalf's, a fact Mr. Wiederholt apparently continues to dispute. Mr. Wiederholt now expresses no remorse at how his conduct affected his own client or how it was inconsistent with his ethical duty to his client; his remorse is directed at how his conduct reflected on the legal profession, and how it affected others outside the relationship with his client. He plainly continues to feel at least somewhat justified in his conduct with respect to his client, because the money wasn't his. [8] He never expresses understanding or regret that he created a situation between himself and his own client where he first cursed his client over the issue of whether and how much he should be paid, [9] then forged his client's signature in order to ensure that he was paid. [10] There were many ways in which he could have avoided the fee dispute, by reducing the agreement to writing, for example. Even now, in 2007, his view of the matter is that [t]he method by which I chose to get it back, to keep it, was what was  that was what was unethical. I don't believe to this day that Mr. Metcalf was entitled to the money. When asked directly how he could have made the mistakes he did in the first place, he responded in part that there were all kinds of reasons at the time that that seemed like the right thing to do. . . . It was an inability to see the whole picture. A similar concern is raised by Mr. Wiederholt's statement to the Board that Dr. Wolf, in all candor, left the last hearing telling my counsel that he thinks he might have made a mistake back in 1992, at the first hearing. Dr. Wolf did not testify to this on the record. Mr. Wiederholt's statement seems to be one more attempt to minimize or re-frame his ethical lapses, without fully appreciating the harm that he caused. The Board remains unconvinced that Mr. Wiederholt's conviction that but for my excesses, I believe that I was a good lawyer . . . demonstrates a real understanding of the harm he caused in the Metcalf matter and in other matters, or a genuine feeling of remorse that he came to cause harm. This conclusion is not much different than, although based on different evidence, the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court in Wiederholt II. [11]