Opinion ID: 1745216
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to provide information to the Director

Text: The Director made four requests for financial documentation relating to Wimbledon Hills and respondent over a period of some 60 days. Respondent stalled the first two requests with inadequate information. He did not respond to the third request nor the fourth. When also asked to sign a release for the bank to turn over information to the Director, respondent modified the release by narrowing its scope. Later, when deposed, respondent claimed he had been denied access to the requested documents by Louis Krall, another shareholder. Krall, however, testified this was not true. [1] The referee found that respondent both legally and physically could have produced the requested documents if he had chosen to do so. The evidence supports these findings. This constitutes a violation of Rule 8.1(a)(3) (failure to comply with demand for information); and Rule 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).