Monday, July 16, 2012

Cultivating Charges

The Illinois Administrator has filed a complaint seeking discipline as a result of the attorney's no contest plea in a California criminal matter.

The complaint alleges:

In May 2010, Respondent agreed to lease an 18,000-square-foot warehouse located on Lathrop Way in Sacramento, California, to Peter and Thomas Holtzman. When he entered into that agreement, Respondent knew that the Holtzmans intended to use the warehouse space to cultivate marijuana for distribution. Respondent agreed with the Holtzmans that he would be paid a fee for acting as a front for their activities, which was in addition to the compensation he received for the rent and utility expenses related to the operation of the warehouse. Respondent visited the warehouse at least eight times between May and December 2010, and met with telephone or municipal utility workers when installation or inspection work was required.

On December 9, 2010, agents from the Sacramento Regional Office of the Department of Justice, Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement, received a telephone call from the Sacramento Municipal Utilities District regarding the fact that several electrical transformers in the vicinity of the Lathrop Way warehouse had overheated, and that problem was traced to the warehouse. Following unsuccessful attempts to contact Respondent, agents attempting to enter the property apprehended a man who was fleeing from them. In the resulting security sweep of the site, agents discovered an indoor marijuana grow area that included 8,000 marijuana plants, 200 lights and ballasts, fans and a $15,000 marijuana trimming machine.

The attorney has been suspended in California as a result of the conviction. (Mike Frisch)

July 16, 2012 in Bar Discipline & Process | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, July 15, 2012

Mortgagor Rhymes With Poor

An attorney admitted to practice in 1999 sought to build a practice by associating with an entity that modified mortgage loans throught the country.

Instead, he got disbarred by the Kansas Supreme Court.

The court rejected his request for an indefinite suspension for both client-related misconduct and his dealings with non-lawyers:

Respondent took money from thousands of distressed and vulnerable mortgagors; he gave most of that money to non-lawyers and did nothing on behalf of the mortgagors...disbarment is the appropriate sanction.

The misconduct is set forth in a 44 page opinion. (Mike Frisch)

July 15, 2012 in Bar Discipline & Process | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)