Tag Archives: Ethical Misconduct

Attorney Disbarred For Mishandling Administration of Mother’s Estate.

06 Saturday Dec 2014

Posted by in Ethics Opinions, Legal Ethics, Malpractice, Probate, Probate and Trusts, Rules of Professional Responsibility, Trusts, Wills

≈ Comments Off on Attorney Disbarred For Mishandling Administration of Mother’s Estate.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Brother Can You Spare A Disbarment? by Mike Frisch, Legal Profession Prof Blog

http://tinyurl.com/m8bcrmw

The Washington State Supreme Court has disbarred an attorney for misconduct in connection with the administration of his mother’s estate.

The attorney was appointed as personal representative on his mother’s death in 1995. He lived with her at the time of her death and had his law office in her home.

The estate was to be equally divided between him and his three brothers.

The court affirmed findings that the attorney had engaged in frivolous motions and appeals, ignored discovery obligations and mis-valued estate assets.

In this case, the hearing officer reasonably concluded from the evidence presented at the hearing that Jones filed frivolous motions and appeals that harmed his brothers and the administration of justice. Jones filed numerous motions and appeals in the trial court, the Court of Appeals, and this court. Each motion was denied, and sanctions were awarded against Jones. Because Jones received sanctions, the hearing officer reasonably concluded that Jones was put on notice of the frivolous nature of his motions before refiling and appealing them. Like in Sanai, the hearing officer did not rely solely on a particular judicial ruling, but rather used judicial decisions as evidence that Jones filed repetitive frivolous motions that resulted in sanctions. The hearing officer’s conclusions were additionally supported by the testimony of six witnesses, resulting in over 1,500 pages of transcripts, as well as nearly 200 exhibits.

The court found seven aggravating factors including refusal to acknowledge the ethical violations

Jones argues that the record does not support refusal to acknowledge because he is not required to agree with the charges made or to confess. However, the aggravating factor of refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of conduct was correctly applied. Jones continued to file motions, lawsuits, and appeals even after being sanctioned numerous times for the frivolous nature of such filings. By receiving sanctions, Jones was aware of his RPC violations but persisted with his conduct.

Five-Month Suspension Appropriate for Serious and Deliberate Ethical Misconduct?

05 Sunday Oct 2014

Posted by in Attorney Discipline, Legal Ethics, Probate and Trusts

≈ Comments Off on Five-Month Suspension Appropriate for Serious and Deliberate Ethical Misconduct?

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Suspension Proposed For Failure To Correct False Client Affidavit, by Mike Frisch, Legal Profession Blog

http://tinyurl.com/k7tevnu

An attorney who failed to correct his client’s  false affidavit claiming sole heirship in an estate matter should be suspended for five months, according to a report and recommendation of the Illinois Review Board.

Following the death of James Volgar (‘James’) in 2008, Respondent agreed to represent James’ brother, Paul Volgar (‘Paul’), regarding the administration of his brother’s estate. Paul was angry that Margaret Madonis (‘Margaret’), a great-niece who had cared for James during his life, was named as a joint tenant on one of James’ bank accounts. After James’ death, Margaret received about $400,000. Paul wanted this money. Paul told Respondent that he was James’ only heir. Based upon the information he received from Paul, Respondent drafted and filed in Will County an affidavit of heirship and letters of administration stating that Paul was the only surviving heir. The probate court then appointed Paul as administrator of the estate.

In early 2009, Respondent learned that Paul had lied to him and that James had additional heirs. However, Respondent took no steps over the following seventeen months to correct the false affidavit he had filed with the court or to file an amended affidavit of heirship. At hearing, Respondent asserted he failed to amend the affidavit of heirship because he simply forgot about it and forgot about the existence of other heirs. He testified he was more focused on the issue as to whether Paul could obtain the money received by Margaret. The Hearing Board rejected Respondent’s testimony, finding it incredible, and noting that 1) Respondent discussed the existence of additional heirs with various individuals; 2) he conducted research regarding distribution law; and 3) he formulated a potential argument to limit the share of the other heirs. Accordingly, the Hearing Board found that Respondent knowingly failed to correct the false statement in the affidavit. Respondent does not challenge this finding.

Following Paul’s appointment as administrator of the estate, Respondent used the false information regarding heirship to obtain information from financial institutions in an attempt to support Paul’s claims against Margaret. Respondent also sold James’ home in 2009 without notification to the other heirs. Respondent’s mother-in-law was the listing real estate agent and Respondent was the title agent. Respondent took over $9,000 in attorney’s fees from the sale proceeds, most of which was for fees Paul owed him to pursue the claim against Margaret.

In addition, Respondent repeated the false statement that Paul was an only heir in subsequent statements to the court, including in a motion for waiver of a surety bond filed in December 2009. . . .