Opinion ID: 1309329
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: findings and recommendations of the state bar court

Text: The hearing panel concluded that petitioner violated his duties as an attorney as set out in Business and Professions Code section 6068. [1] It found he had relinquished supervision of his trust account to Pollock and failed to control, supervise, maintain, investigate or review statements of deposits or withdrawals of the account. It also found, however, that petitioner received no benefit from Pollock's use of the account, did not misappropriate or commingle funds, and did not put any trust account funds to personal use. The panel determined petitioner had never represented the DeMerses in any capacity, that he had no fiduciary relationship with them, and no knowledge, before he closed the trust account, of any dealings between Pollock and the DeMerses. It found the DeMerses entrusted their $10,000 to Pollock alone. In addition, the panel found that petitioner never authorized Pollock to indorse or sign any document on his behalf, and that petitioner's signature on the DeMerses' $10,000 check was forged. It concluded that petitioner had committed no dishonest act, and no act involving moral turpitude. The panel further found petitioner's judgment in this matter had been affected by his manic-depressive state following his unsuccessful representation of Sandra Pollock, and also by his failure at that time to maintain the proper dosage of lithium for treatment of his manic-depressive episodes. It listed as mitigating factors: (a) no prior record of discipline or client complaints; (b) good faith; (c) lack of harm to petitioner's client; (d) cooperation with the State Bar; (e) remorse; (f) emotional difficulties; and (g) good character. It also noted that petitioner had engaged in pro bono work, and that he was uncertain over his obligations of restitution in this case. It recommended one year suspension, stayed, with one year probation on condition of ninety days actual suspension, and no restitution. The review department adopted the findings of the hearing panel, with several amendments. Most importantly, it amended finding of fact number 5 (that petitioner's trust account was opened for the exclusive use of Robert Pollock, a client [he] represented) by adding that the account  was opened for the purpose of defrauding Mr. Pollock's creditors.  (Italics added.) The department deleted the panel's conclusions that petitioner had no contact or relationship with the DeMerses, and that he had committed no dishonest act. [2] In addition to increasing the recommended suspension to two years, execution stayed, with a two-year probation conditioned on a ninety-day actual suspension, the review department recommended petitioner be required to make restitution to the DeMerses in the amount of $10,000 plus interest, and that he obtain psychiatric or psychological treatment. The department stated its reason for the increased discipline was that allowing a client to use the attorney's trust account in a scheme to defraud the client's creditors is a very serious offense warranting greater discipline than recommended by the hearing panel. Three of the fourteen referees voted against the recommendation, because the recommended degree of discipline is insufficient based on the above-mentioned scheme to defraud. (Italics added.)