Opinion ID: 1764161
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Hearing Panel

Text: After considering the evidence, the Hearing Panel found that Nevin violated several provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility in each of the three cases. [4] In Cara Sneed Pyle's case, the Hearing Panel found that Nevin violated DR 9-102(B)(3) [5] by transferring money between his client trust account and Pyle's conservatorship account, by failing to preserve the identity of Pyle's money, and by commingling trust fund accounts without documenting the identity of funds. The Hearing Panel also found that Nevin failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in violation of DR 7-101(A)(1), demonstrated neglect of a matter entrusted to [him] in violation of DR 6-101(A)(3), and improperly retain[ed] interest earned from funds and accounts in his trust in violation of DR 9-102(A). Finally, because Nevin was found to have violated other disciplinary rules, the Hearing Panel found him to be in violation of DR 1-102(A)(1). [6] In the matter of Pauline Doucette, the Hearing Panel found that Nevin failed to act with reasonable diligence in violation of DR 7-101(A)(1) and violated a disciplinary rule as prohibited by DR 1-102(A)(1). Specifically, the Hearing Panel found that Nevin knew of the additional estate assets before filing the inventory, that Nevin misrepresented the value of the estate to the court, and that Nevin did not correct this misrepresentation until notified by the decedent's daughter. Finally, in Kenneth Jackson's case, the Hearing Panel determined that Nevin failed to act with reasonable diligence in violation of DR 7-101(A)(1) and violated a disciplinary rule as prohibited by DR 1-102(A)(1). Specifically, the Hearing Panel found that Nevin failed to protect Jackson's assets by not ensuring that the property taxes were paid even though he knew or should have known that the taxes were due. The Hearing Panel also found that Nevin failed to safeguard the rental income from the property for the benefit of the child. As a result of its findings, the Hearing Panel suspended Nevin from the practice of law for six months and mandated at least fifteen hours of continuing legal education in law office management, specifically the handling of client trust accounts and basic fiduciary obligations. The Hearing Panel first considered section 9.0 of the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (ABA Standards) and found that the aggravating circumstances substantially outweighed the mitigating circumstances. The Hearing Panel then considered section 4.12 which states that [s]uspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows or should know that he is dealing improperly with client property and causes injury or potential injury to a client. The Hearing Panel also relied on section 4.42 when emphasizing that Nevin both failed to perform services and . . . engaged in a pattern of neglect, each of which caused actual or potential injury. The Hearing Panel further found: In both the Pyle matter and the Doucette matter, [Nevin] submitted accountings to the Court that contained misrepresentations of information known to [Nevin]. In the Pyle matter, the accounting misrepresented the nature of deposits that [Nevin] made from his trust account. In the Doucette matter, the accounting misrepresented the assets actually held. . . . Although [Nevin's] knowledge of these misrepresentations might reasonably be inferred from the evidence presented, whether [Nevin] acted with knowledge or negligently makes no difference to the Panel's decision. Giving [Nevin] the benefit of the doubt . . . the Panel still finds that the aggravating circumstances. . . warrant increasing the penalty to a suspension. In making these determinations, the Hearing Panel emphasized that Nevin failed to acknowledge any wrongdoing, blamed others for his actions, and was uncooperative, unremorseful, and not credible.