Opinion ID: 1530409
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Respondent's Explanation for his Conduct

Text: Respondent did not file an answer to Bar Counsel's petition. He did appear at the hearing and was ordered by the Hearing Committee to respond to an outstanding subpoena and to answer the Complaint. Respondent submitted a letter, BX 60, that the Hearing Committee found did not comply squarely with the terms of its order. HC Rep. at 13. Respondent offered no other documents or written submissions. He was called as a witness by Bar Counsel, but declined to provide additional testimony in his own defense. As the Hearing Committee noted, Respondent admitted virtually all of the facts supporting the violations, but offered no coherent explanation for his conduct. HC Rep. at 6. In the letter to the Committee filed just prior to the hearing, Respondent mentioned ongoing negotiations regarding reductions in the third party claims and his expectation of a wire transfer into the account. Under the caption Confusion, Error and Neglect, Respondent wrote that [i]t was my intention at all relevant times to maintain the appropriate balance of funds in my trust account. BX 60 at 4. At the hearing, Respondent testified that his mishandling of the funds in the trust account was attributable to confusion. When asked directly why, even as of the date of the hearing, Dr. Garmon had not been paid, Respondent testified that: Well, I should have paid that billI wish I had paid that bill when I first got started with this. Basically, I'm liable for these funds and I intend to pay it within a few days. I can just tell you that there was some confusion in my accounts, which at this point I still do not know how everything that happened here happened. But there was nothing intentional on my part to deprive this man of his income. I think I have made some mistakes here. I think I was negligent about some things I should have paid attention to that I didn't. I don't think I accounted for the funds that were in my account properly. But basically I hadall of these time periods we had the funds to pay him. Tr. 130-131. [6] Respondent testified vaguely to several sources of confusion, including his expectation of a wire transfer in August, 1995, that never came, his mother-in-law's illness and death, to a period in which he was ill himself and to an office arrangement that made it difficult for him to get his bank statements. Tr. 95-96, 104. He insisted that although he drafted checks on the trust account without keeping a ledger reflecting the funds in the account and without reviewing the bank statements, if I had a check issued it was because I at least believed there was proper funds in the account. Tr. 105. In urging the Committee against a sanction of disbarment, Respondent admitted making mistakes, but would not categorize what I did as willful or reckless, ... I think that I was simplynot simply but in many instances in this regard, I was careless, and I neglected to take care of matters that I should have taken care of. Tr. 160. Respondent admitted that, at least by August or September, 1995, he was aware that the trust account contained insufficient funds to pay Dr. Garmon. Tr. 139-40. He had no real explanation for his failure to restore the money to the trust account, other than that there were just a lot of things that I intended to do that I didn't do. Tr. 139-141.