Opinion ID: 1670370
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Breaches

Text: In his testimony in his defense, Amberg admitted that his neglect had contributed to his client's being deprived of the benefit of her money for over one year, but he claimed that he had been prevented from delivering the funds initially by the acts of third persons. He conceded that no attempt had been made to transfer Ms. McKee's net settlement proceeds to her creditor at the time of settlement, but he contended that this failure was due to the defalcation of his former paralegal-secretary whose whereabouts were unknown. Although he did not dispute that he had received notification of his former employee's failure to deliver Ms. McKee's funds about one month after the settlement, he testified that he was powerless to repair the damage for over twelve months because of a combination of circumstances including a separation from his wife, her attempted suicide, and his careless handling and storage of clients' files during the relocation of his law office. Although the Committee did not establish with clear and convincing evidence that Amberg knowingly converted his client's money for his own benefit, it is highly improbable that the lengthy deprivation could have occurred without gross negligence on his part. The combination of circumstances described by Amberg is unlikely, and he offered no evidence of the events other than his own testimony. Even if we accept his uncorroborated account of his secretary-paralegal's defalcation and his misplacement of his client's file, this does not explain his prolonged failure to rectify his default in duty to his client. He was put on notice of his former employee's alleged embezzlement and failure to disburse Ms. McKee's funds a few weeks after the settlement. Despite the loss of the client's file, he easily could have determined what happened by reviewing his records with his bank. If Amberg had sufficient funds on hand at this time, as he contended, he could have paid her creditor the money due shortly after being notified of the default. In an effort to convince this Court that he did not receive any benefit from the misapplication of Ms. McKee's funds or the delay in disbursing them, Amberg added a further set of implausible facts to his testimony. He contended that the shortage in his account reflected by the bank records was not due to a true insufficiency but was caused by the bank's failure to comply with an agreement he had made with one of its former officers. (Amberg did not call the former officer as a witness; nor could Amberg recall his last name.) Under the agreement, he testified, insurance company drafts were to be credited to his account immediately upon deposit, instead of after they had cleared as in normal banking practice. Amberg explained that the former officer agreed to give him special treatment because he had, on deposit, some $90,000.00 in his mother's name and back-up money of his own. Because the bank failed to follow the procedure agreed upon during the period of Ms. McKee's deprivation of funds, he testified, there were unjustified shortages in his account. Amberg presented no evidence to corroborate his testimony as to the agreement with the bank or the $90,000.00 deposit. He testified that he had discussed the matter with a present bank officer who could substantiate his story, but he failed to produce the witness or to request a recess for that purpose. In the absence of corroboration of at least some of the circumstances of the banking arrangement, which should have been easy to obtain, we conclude that Amberg's testimony in this regard is implausible. The Committee's petition charges that Amberg committed disciplinary rule violations by permitting his client's funds to be improperly withdrawn, commingled and converted to his own use, DR 9-102(A) & (B), by failing to properly account to his client, DR 9-102(B)(1)-(4), and by neglecting matters his client had entrusted to his care. DR 6-101(A)(3). In its brief, the Committee does not contend that Amberg knowingly or fraudulently converted the client's funds to his use, but that the respondent was guilty of gross negligence in causing injury to the client from which he benefitted. We conclude that the Committee has proved the violations of gross negligence, as contended, by clear and convincing evidence.