Opinion ID: 1184437
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: third item of complaint

Text: This complaint was made by one Charles Lee Edwards. Essentially, this complaint deals with taking possession of an automobile belonging to Edwards, selling it to respondent's partner, and failing to account. Edwards was a member of the United States Army, was stationed at Ft. Lewis, and held a rank of E-4. Edwards was arrested June 8, 1969, and charged with loitering and grand larceny. An attorney, Mr. Gary Cronk, was appointed. Mr. Cronk and respondent were office associates. Respondent was requested by Mr. Cronk to go to the jail and talk to Edwards, and he did so. Respondent questioned Edwards and told Edwards his right to appointed counsel was doubtful. Edwards agreed to retain respondent with a fee of $1,500 with $500 down. Edwards attempted to get funds from his family in Texas, but was unsuccessful. Edwards had a substantial equity in a 1969 Pontiac automobile. He agreed to assign that to respondent as security and further signed an agreement whereby if the fee were not paid, respondent could sell the vehicle and apply the proceeds of the sale to the fee and costs. The vehicle had been impounded after the arrest of Edwards. On June 11, 1969, respondent took possession of the vehicle and took it out of impound. Edwards was released to the military authorities on the same day. He immediately demanded possession of his automobile from respondent and was told he could have the vehicle if he would pay the fee. Edwards did not bring in the money and a dispute arose between him and respondent. Soon after that, Cronk paid off the $1,762 balance against the automobile and purchased it for himself. Within a short time Cronk sold the vehicle to his neighbor for $2,250; the market value was $2,800. Edwards had some clothing in the vehicle. Such items are in the possession of respondent and will be delivered to Edwards at any time. Edwards claimed the clothing was worth $280. The hearing panel found the value to be little or nothing. Respondent was employed to get Edwards out of jail and back to the military as soon as possible, and then delay the matter until early September 1969 when Edwards was scheduled to be, and was, discharged. The principal purpose was to avoid further prosecution by the military authorities. In this respondent was successful. Upon his discharge Edwards left the area and several warrants are outstanding for his arrest. All that respondent received for his successful representation of Edwards was $200 received from Cronk either in cash or as a credit on rent. The hearing panel recommended reprimand and the disciplinary board agreed. The reprimand was based upon respondent's failure to properly account to his client, and dealing in his client's property for personal benefit or gain.