Opinion ID: 2760349
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Counts Five And Eight

Text: Miles’s challenge to the Board’s ultimate finding that she committed the violations in counts five8 and eight9 is premised upon her argument that we should overturn at least one of the following underlying factual findings: (1) no gift of the funds in the Progressive savings account was intended or accomplished from Donald to Miles,10 and (2) at the time Miles withdrew the funds from the account, she knew she had no ownership interest in them. 7 In re Shea, 273 P.3d at 619 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Alaska Bar R. 22(r) (“The Court will decide . . . the type of discipline to be imposed . . . .”). 8 Count five alleged that Miles failed to promptly notify those with an interest in the Progressive savings account funds when they came into her possession, account for those funds, and deliver them to those entitled to the funds, in violation of Alaska R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(d). 9 Count eight alleged that Miles committed the criminal act of theft, misappropriation, or wrongful conversion, in violation of Alaska R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(b). 10 The Area Hearing Committee found “as a matter of fact and law that no gift was accomplished by Donald’s purported statement of an intent to make a gift of funds to Miles.” It also expressed “reasonable doubt whether Donald had actually made statements to Miles intending to gift her money through a non-probate transfer from a joint account” and stated that Miles’s claims regarding such statements were “uncorroborated and self-serving.” The Committee added that “Donald never opened a joint account with Miles” and that “two of [Donald’s] close friends testified that Miles was not [Donald’s] close friend . . . [and] did not socialize with him, and that Donald would not have give[n] her any of his money.” Based upon the Committee’s reasoning, we treat its finding that no gift was accomplished as a finding of fact that Donald lacked donative intent. -19- 6975 To accomplish a gift, “donative intent must be clear, unmistakable, and unequivocal.”11 Miles testified that she was “most definitely” wrong in believing that the money from the savings account belonged to her. She admitted that she had no documentation “beyond the bank accounts” memorializing Donald’s alleged intent to gift the funds to her, and that no aspect of the bank accounts expressly entitled her to the funds. Miles’s testimony regarding Donald’s alleged “donative intent” is lacking and contradicted by the evidence: Miles testified that Donald posed a hypothetical question regarding setting up a joint account with her, she answered that he should create a will, and he shrugged off that answer. According to Miles, Donald then told her — though it is unclear when or in what terms — that he was setting up a joint personal account with rights of survivorship in Miles’s favor. Donald instead created business accounts with Miles as a signer under her putative authority as the business’s registered agent, had Miles sign a “Power of Attorney” form giving him “sole signatory authority and sole authority to manage [those accounts] as he [saw] fit,” added himself onto the accounts as a signer under his authority as the business’s owner, ran a business using the accounts, and spent the majority of the money. Donald’s close friends testified that Donald would not have given money to Miles. Miles has therefore failed to carry her burden of proving erroneous the Board’s finding that no gift was accomplished.12 11 Roberson v. Manning, 268 P.3d 1090, 1094 (Alaska 2012). 12 We note that even if Donald had intended to gift the money to Miles, a gift from a client to an attorney is subject to special scrutiny. See, e.g., Alaska R. Prof. Conduct 1.8(c); Commentary Alaska R. Prof. Conduct 1.8 (“[T]he doctrine of undue influence . . . treats client gifts as presumptively fraudulent. . . . If effectuation of a substantial gift requires preparing a legal instrument such as a will or conveyance the client should have the detached advice that another lawyer can provide. The sole exception to this Rule is where the client is a relative of the donee.”). -20- 6975 Miles next argues we should find she did not possess the mental state required for the crime of theft because, even if there actually was no gift, she believed Donald had completed a gift to her and she did not know that the funds in the savings account belonged to someone else. But it stretches credulity that Miles, having been an attorney in Alaska for 20 years and offering legal services in estate planning and probate, failed to recognize a single one of the numerous signals that Donald had not, in fact, completed a gift to her. Further, Miles’s own actions are inconsistent with her professed belief that a gift had been completed: On the day the accounts were opened in her name, she prepared and signed the “Power of Attorney” form giving Donald “sole signatory authority and sole authority to manage [the accounts] as he [saw] fit,” and she withdrew no money from the accounts during Donald’s lifetime. Miles’s explanation that she “would never just spend Donald’s money,” but that she thought she could have spent some if she wanted or needed to do so, conflicts with her argument that she believed a gift to her had been completed and that it was her money. Miles’s assertion that she believed both accounts belonged to her also conflicts with her decisions to reveal one and hide the other and to never present the estate with a claim of right to the money in either account. Miles has therefore failed to carry her burden of proving erroneous the Board’s finding that Miles knew the money did not belong to her when she wrongfully converted it to her possession.