Opinion ID: 2321650
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: When the Cash Payment was Received

Text: Respondent's second exception is to Judge Greenberg's factual finding that Subedi paid $750.00 in cash to Respondent, on a date uncertain, which was not deposited into the IOLTA. Respondent asserts that Subedi's initial payment was in the form of a check, which was not deposited because it was drawn on insufficient funds. Respondent alleges that the first payment he actually received in the matter was Thapa's $750 check, which was deposited into Respondent's personal account on February 4, 2007after he had done at least some work on the matter and that Respondent did not receive the remaining $750 payment until after he had completed the asylum interview, and the representation, in September 2007. But this assertion is undermined by several facts in the record. Judge Greenberg, in his determinations, refers to the court's finding that Respondent was paid $750.00 cash at the time of the first meeting with [Subedi], for which there is no accounting. The retainer agreement between the Respondent and Subedi required that the fee be paid in two installments before Respondent attended an asylum interview for the client. It is undisputed that Respondent stated to Petitioner's investigator that the first $750 payment was in cash and the second was a check. And the CDA signed by Respondent in February of 2009 stated: Respondent was paid $1,500 as a prepaid fee for services to be provided. Judge Greenberg does not mention Respondent's testimony that Subedi's initial payment was a bounced check. He must not have found this testimony to be credible, in light of the absence of any supporting documentation (such as a copy of the check) and Respondent's prior statements to Petitioner's investigator and in the CDA that the initial payment was made in cash. There is no evidence supporting Respondent's testimony and considerable evidence contradicting it, so Judge Greenberg's finding that the $750 cash payment was made before the representation was completed was not clearly erroneous. Therefore, Respondent's exception is overruled.