Articles Posted in Legal Ethics

Matter of Davis 2014 NY Slip Op 07080.

A bankruptcy lawyer was disciplined for allowing a third party to use his electronic login to file bankruptcy petitions. The pertinent part of the opinion states:

“At issue were four involuntary bankruptcy petitions filed between June and December 2011 against debtor Joseph Lipschitz; three of the petitions were filed by purported pro se creditor Manuel Goldsmith and the fourth was filed by Mendel Minko, also a pro se creditor ^[FN1]. Two of the petitions were filed with the Southern District and the other two were filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York. The first petition was withdrawn by the petitioner creditor and the subsequent three were dismissed for failure to [*2]prosecute.^[FN2]

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD.

If true, this is an ugly awful tale in which a lawyer, Robert M. Stephenson, stole from trusts established by his parents for the benefit of his own children. The key allegations are set forth in the complaint:

“1. In May 2007, Respondent agreed to serve as trustee of the Robert McCreary Stephenson and Martha LaFon Stephenson Annual Exclusion Gifting Trust (“the children’s trust”), which had been created and funded in Florida at that time by Respondent’s parents, Robert McCreary Stephenson and Martha LaFon Stephenson.

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD.

The ARDC has asserted a problematic claim against a lawyer who split a fee with another lawyer who did some of the work on the matter. I believe that the claim represents a misreading of the text of Rule 1.5(e).

First, I will quote the complaint:

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD.

The ARDC has filed a complaint against two lawyers of a Chicago law firm and has alleged that they engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in New Mexico, Georgia and North Carolina. This is an unusual complaint. Usually, the ARDC brings cases for the unauthorized practice of law against those who were not licensed in Illinois and who attempted to practice law in Illinois. The two lawyers accused in the complaint are licensed in Illinois and are in good standing with the Illinois. The ARDC has claimed that they wrongfully practiced in other states and failed to promptly refund fees for those matters. The underlying matters involved real estate foreclosures in other states.

This case is a reminder to everyone that Illinois lawyers are not licensed to practice law in other states.

The case is North Carolina State Bar v. Paul T. Jackson, 14 DHC 20.

The case is part of a growing trend to bring disciplinary charges against prosecutors who fail to disclose exculpatory evidence.

The important facts, as set forth in the complaint, are alleged to be as follows:

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD.

This is a rare case where a prosecutor is being accused of wrongdoing for failing to disclose that a witness changed his story and for allegedly misleading the court about the witness’ testimony.

What is odd about the case is that the ARDC chose this prosecutorial misconduct case to prosecute. This appears to be the first such case brought by the ARDC.

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD.

I have a strong opinion on this case – this is a dreadful act of overreaching by the ARDC. Ms. Naughton and a friend were accused of disorderly conduct after a Cubs game in 2012. In 2013, she was tried and acquitted of all charges.

Now, in an atrocious abuse of prosecutorial discretion, the ARDC has filed charges alleging the same facts as were alleged in the criminal case.

Mandatory Sentencing for Medical Marijuana – NYTimes.com.

This is a New York Times story on the prosecution of a family growing marijuana. They claim the marijuana is for medical purposes. The feds disagree. In the end, a jury will decide the fate of these people.

This case raises an ethical question for lawyers. Let’s say you are a lawyer in Colorado or Washington state. Someone comes in to the office and proposes a new company to sell medical marijuana. You form an entity. You write an operating agreement and you assist the client in setting up what appears to be a lawful business. Also, assume your clients obtain a state license and comply with all of the laws of their state.

BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD.

This case results from an error in judgment that took place in 2003, more than 11 years ago. A lawyer instructed a staff member to falsely attest that certain persons had witnessed the signing of a will. This is one of the easiest of disciplinary cases for the administrator to prove.

Here are the pertinent allegations: