Legal Profession Blog

"Have You Ever Met Sal?"

The New Jersey Supreme Court has reprimanded a conditionally admitted attorney and extended the period of conditional admission.

From the Disciplinary Review Board letter decision

On May 9, 2023, just before midnight, a Clark Police Department police officer observed respondent asleep in his vehicle, with the car engine running, at a complete stop in a merging lane. According to the police report, respondent’s speech was slurred and he appeared confused. After he stumbled out of the car, officers detected the odor of alcohol on his breath. Respondent admitted to the officers that he had consumed alcoholic beverages prior to operating his vehicle. Given these observations, and respondent’s poor performance on standardized sobriety tests, the police officers arrested him for suspicion of driving while intoxicated.

Although respondent initially cooperated with the police, he became combative after transport to the police station. He refused to sign forms indicating that he was advised of his constitutional rights and which personal belonging were inventoried. He also refused to provide breath samples for the Alcotest instrument because officers could not tell him “when the machine was last calibrated.” Moreover, referring to the mayor of Clark, respondent asked the officers, “Do you know who Sal Bonaccorso is? . . . Have you ever met Sal? . . . [and] How many times have you met him?” Respondent even demanded that the officers call the mayor to pick him up.

Respondent informed the officers he was “being held against his constitutional rights,” and demanded to be released. When the officers explained to him that he would have to remain at headquarters for at least twelve hours if no one came to retrieve him, he became “irate” and demanded to speak with a judge. Once he was placed in a holding cell, after using his cellular telephone despite the officer’s directive that he not do so, he began banging, kicking, and running into the door. He also yelled profanities and threatened to take legal action against the police department.

Sanction

In mitigation, respondent admitted his wrongdoing and accepted responsibility for his actions. Moreover, he promptly reported his misconduct, and he entered into this disciplinary stipulation. Additionally, he expressed sincere remorse and emphasized his commitment to reforming his conduct and remaining an upstanding member of the New Jersey bar.

In aggravation, respondent’s conduct toward the police officers following his arrest reflected a lack of the personal and professional characteristics demanded of an attorney. He failed to cooperate, became irate, made threats of legal action, and shouted at the officers.

Moreover, respondent repeatedly asked the police officers if they knew the town’s mayor, even demanding that they call him, thereby implying his ability to influence the outcome of the arrest by virtue of his relationship with the mayor.

Thus

On balance, the Board determined that a reprimand is the appropriate quantum of discipline to protect the public and preserve confidence in the bar. The Board further recommended that, as a condition, respondent’s conditional admission should be extended for an additional two years before he can petition for the termination of those conditions.

Knowing Sal the Mayor has a  reduced cachet, according to the New Jersey Attorney General

Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin and the Office of Public Integrity and Accountability (OPIA) announced that Salvatore Bonaccorso, the longtime mayor of Clark Township, pleaded guilty today in connection with his use of Clark employees for his private business, a landscaping and underground oil storage tank removal company. As part of his agreement with OPIA to plead guilty, Bonaccorso, at the time of his guilty plea, entered a consent order immediately forfeiting his office as mayor of Clark and agreeing to be permanently barred from holding any future public office or employment.

Bonaccorso, 64, of Clark, New Jersey, who has been the township’s mayor since 2001, pleaded guilty to a two-count accusation charging him with conspiring to commit official misconduct (3rd degree) and forgery (3rd degree). The second count stems from his submission of false and fraudulent permit applications to municipalities, which enabled his landscaping company to improperly and unlawfully obtain permits to remove hundreds of underground tanks.

Bonaccorso entered the plea during a hearing on January 10, 2025, before New Jersey Superior Court Judge Lisa Miralles Walsh, presiding in Union County.

“Today’s guilty plea secured by OPIA ends a long and sad betrayal of the community by someone who had been in a position of power and trust for a long time,” said Attorney General Platkin. “Anyone who betrays the public’s trust by placing their own interests ahead of their duty as a public servant to New Jersey residents will be held accountable. Let me be clear: I will never stop rooting out corruption in New Jersey, no matter how powerful the offenders may be.”

“Bonaccorso used taxpayer-funded workers for personal gain. He abused his power over municipal personnel, finances, and operations, and he submitted false documents to keep the scheme going,” said Drew Skinner, Executive Director of OPIA. “My office will investigate and prosecute anyone who illegally abuses the public’s trust.”

The mayor and his company, Bonaccorso & Son LLC, also agreed to be ineligible from bidding for any public contracts, entering into any public contracts, or conducting any business with the State or its political subdivisions for five years. Furthermore, they are barred for three years from conducting, or contracting to conduct, any storage tank removals for any private commercial or residential property owners.

Under the terms of the plea agreement, the State will recommend that the court sentence the defendant to three years of probation and impose a fine of $15,000, the maximum allowable fine for conviction of a third-degree crime.

OPIA charged Bonaccorso by complaint on November 20, 2023 after an investigation by the Corruption Bureau found that, while acting in his official capacity as the mayor, Bonaccorso operated his oil tank-removal business out of his township office utilizing municipal resources. He stored and maintained the records for the business at the mayor’s office, using township equipment including computers and fax machines, and directing or using township employees to perform duties while those employees were working for and being paid by the township, solely for the purpose of running his business.

During the course of the investigation, OPIA also discovered that the defendant and his landscaping and underground storage tank company, Bonaccorso & Son, fraudulently used an engineer’s name, license number, as well as, in many cases, forging the engineer’s signature on permit applications submitted to municipalities for tank removals — knowing the engineer was neither supervising nor in any way involved in those projects, and without any legally required tank inspections actually taking place at the job sites. Neither Bonaccorso nor his company have the necessary underground-storage-tank-removal license required to do such work.

A review of permit applications submitted by Bonaccorso and his company revealed that Bonaccorso misrepresented to municipalities that the engineer was the on-site supervisor of the removal work, as required by New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) regulations, for all of the tank removals done by Bonaccorso & Son.

New Jersey law prohibits any individual from doing work on unregulated heating-oil tank systems unless the individual is certified or working under the immediate, on-site supervision of a person who is certified. NJDEP rules state that whether a tank is removed or abandoned-in-place, the job must be conducted by a contractor certified for underground storage tank closure, who is working for a closure-certified firm.

The investigation revealed Bonaccorso arranged to have the engineer obtain a storage-tank license and insurance, and Bonaccorso directly paid to maintain both. The value of the removal jobs associated with the fraudulent permits submitted by Bonaccorso between 2017 and 2023 amounted to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The plea was handled by OPIA Corruption Bureau Co-Director Jeffrey J. Manis and Corruption Bureau Deputy Chief Frank L. Valdinoto, under the supervision of OPIA Executive Director Skinner. Attorney General Platkin also thanked the New Jersey Department of the Treasury, Division of Taxation, Office of Criminal Investigation, and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for their assistance and valuable contributions to the investigation.

And from NJ.com

Bonaccorso has faced a torrent of criticism since 2022 when NJ Advance Media revealed the township had paid a $400,000 hush-money settlement to a whistleblower who secretly recorded Bonaccorso, police Chief Pedro Matos and internal affairs Sgt. Joseph Teston crudely denigrating Black people. Bonaccorso also called female police officers “f------ disasters.”

As to the criminal case

Bonaccorso, 64, had criticized the criminal case, dismissing the allegations as “garbage” and “another weaponization against a MAGA Republican.” Despite the uncertainty, he sought reelection and won 59% of the vote.

On Jan. 1, Bonaccorso was sworn into his new term. At the township hall ceremony, he made no direct reference to the charges or the prospect they would force him from office. But his remarks nonetheless struck valedictory tones.

 

Bonaccorso fought tears that day as he spoke of his family’s support. He ticked through a list of accomplishments during his long tenure. He praised his allies on the township council who steadfastly backed him through the controversies.

 

“I took a lot of rocks in the last couple of years, and they were right with me and stood behind me because we know each other,” Bonaccorso said. “We know the integrity, the effort and the love for this community we have.”

 

Council members reciprocated his sentiments during the reorganization meeting.

 

“The first 25 years of this community’s 21st century is Bonaccorso,” said longtime Councilman Brian Toal, adding the mayor’s legacy will live on. “Sal, you did a good job, is what I’m trying to say.”

(Mike Frisch)

Married, With Fraud

The Illinois Administrator has filed a complaint alleging misconduct relating to his federal conspiracy to commit marriage fraud conviction

As part of the conspiracy, Respondent provided legal representation for fraudulently married couples when they petitioned USCIS for a “green card” for the foreign national spouse. Respondent knew these couples were in a fraudulent marriage, or “contract marriages”, for the sole purpose of obtaining a “green card” for the foreign national spouse. Respondent knowingly assisted the couples in completing necessary forms with false and fraudulent representations, gathering and manufacturing false and fraudulent documentation, submitting said false and fraudulent documentation to UCIS, coaching the couples to falsely and fraudulently hold themselves out as legitimately married and evade detection by officials at the USCIS interviews, and personally accompanying the couples to their USCIS interviews.

In support of these USCIS petitions, Respondent knowingly submitted false and fraudulent documents to USCIS on behalf of the fraudulently married couples, including, for example, Form I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative) and Form I-485 (Application to Register Permanent Resident or Adjust Status). Additionally, Respondent collected and knowingly submitted fraudulent supporting documentation to USCIS on behalf of the fraudulently married couple, including lease agreements, powers of attorney, wills, and health care proxies. Further, as part of at least one of the fraudulent USCIS packages, Respondent included the passport of the U.S. citizen spouse.

For each couple he represented, Respondent created significant legal documents for them to execute and present to USCIS as part of their petition for a “green card” for the foreign national spouse. These documents included wills, powers of attorney, and health care proxy forms. Respondent directed the couples to back date these forms to make it appear as though these were executed long before the USCIS interview in an effort to convince the USCIS adjustor that the marriage was legitimate. Further, Respondent advised the couples that these legal documents were not enforceable and were only for the purpose of presenting to USCIS. Respondent personally handed these false and fraudulent documents to the USCIS Adjudicator at the couple’s USCIS interviews.

 In total, Respondent submitted at least six, but not more than 24, packages containing false and fraudulent documentation for “green cards” based on fraudulent marriages between U.S. citizens and foreign nationals seeking legal permanent resident status in the United States.

He did it his way

On September 23, 2022, Respondent’s guilty plea came before the Honorable John L. Sinatra, Jr. for hearing, and was accepted. The sentencing hearing was initially set for March 16, 2023, but was rescheduled several times. On October 16, 2024, the sentencing hearing was rescheduled for January 8, 2025.

On January 8, 2025, Respondent was sentenced to probation for a term of three years. In addition, the court imposed six months on home detention.

(Mike Frisch)

In The Driver's Seat

A Louisiana Hearing Committee rejected charges relating to the complaint of a former client but found an attorney had violated the rule mandating cooperation with the investigation of the complaint.

The Committee found the Respondent’s testimony to be credible in that he sincerely believes he earned the fee. He also admitted, albeit reluctantly, that he should have cooperated with the ODC.

In addition

On or about October 17, 2022, the ODC received information that an arrest warrant had been issued in East Baton Rouge Parish for Respondent. According to the arrest warrant, Respondent leased a vehicle by false representation then failed to return said vehicle. The police report used to obtain the arrest warrant indicates Respondent leased the vehicle from Enterprise Rental Car on Siegen Lane in Baton Rouge. The lease started on July 31, 2021, with the car being required to be returned on December 10, 2021. Respondent failed to return the car. Thereafter, Enterprise Rental Car attempted to contact Respondent numerous times regarding the return of the car to no avail. Enterprise Rental Car also sent a certified letter to Respondent demanding the return of the vehicle. When Enterprise Rental Car heard nothing from Respondent, the company representatives contacted law enforcement.

Findings

The Committee finds that the Respondent knowingly violated Rule 8.1(c) by failing to cooperate with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel in the two disciplinary investigations. The Committee concludes that the Respondent’s conduct was knowing because of the number of times the ODC tried to serve him and the communications between him and the ODC investigator indicates that the Respondent knew that he was not cooperating. The Committee further finds that the Respondent violated Rules 8.4(a) and 8.4(d) in that he knowingly violated the Rules of Professional Conduct and his doing so was prejudicial to the administration of justice with respect to these disciplinary proceedings.

The committee recommends a 60-day suspension. (Mike Frisch)

An Unusual Path

The Ontario Law Society Tribunal Hearing Division has revoked a license to practice

 The path by which Mr. Saran became licensed in Ontario was somewhat unusual. While the path taken does not much matter in the end, it is useful to describe his path at the outset to avoid confusion.

Prior to November 2021, Mr. Saran had unsuccessfully taken the solicitor examination three times and had unsuccessfully taken the barristers exam four times. The November 2021 solicitor examination was his fourth attempt.

 

While Mr. Saran was pursuing a licence to practise law in Ontario, he also pursued a licence to practise law in Nova Scotia. Unlike Ontario, Nova Scotia now has a path to licensing that does not require the successful completion of licensing examinations.

 

Mr. Saran became licensed as a lawyer in Nova Scotia in January 2022. Having been licensed in Nova Scotia, Mr. Saran immediately sought to be licensed in Ontario under what are sometimes called the mobility rules. Generally, lawyers who are licensed elsewhere in Canada need not pass the Ontario licensing examinations in order to become licensed in Ontario.

 

In January 2022, Mr. Saran made a new application for licensing to the Law Society of Ontario based on his licensing in Nova Scotia. In this application, Mr. Saran was asked a number of “good character” questions. On February 17, 2022, Mr. Saran submitted a Petition for Call to the Bar and Certificate of Fitness – Transfer from another Province or Territory of Canada in which he confirmed that his responses to the good character questions continued to be current, complete and correct.

 

Mr. Saran was licensed as a lawyer in Ontario on February 24, 2022 as a mobility licensee. His application under the usual licensing process was withdrawn.

 

While the allegation of cheating is in respect of the solicitor exam taken under Mr. Saran’s original licensing application, cheating, if proven, would be relevant to the requirement of good character for the new licensing application and could be relevant to the “good character” questions asked in the new licensing application.

 

The examination in issue was administered during COVID restrictions

 

Unfortunately, not all test-takers could be accommodated on the same day in this new on-line format. In November 2021, each of the barrister and solicitor exams had to be held on four days. The four barrister exams occurred on November 2, 3, 4 and 5, 2021, while the four solicitor exams occurred on November 16, 17, 18 and 19, 2021. Approximately 1,700 examinations were administered in the eight sittings.

 

Irregularities identified

 

On November 19, 2021, the Law Society learned that irregularities in the solicitor exam held that day had been identified. Specifically, two different candidates had logged onto the exam from the same IP address and moved unusually quickly through the exam; had significant periods of inaction during the test; and made unusually few changes to their answers during the course of the exam. An analysis of the two candidates’ performance revealed further irregularities. Specifically, the two candidates both answered some questions in unusually brief periods of time. Further, the two candidates took similarly prolonged periods to answer experimental questions as opposed to similarly shorter periods to answer operational questions. The two candidates had remarkably similar responses to one another. This included 13 incorrect answers in common. Moreover, these two candidates listed each other as the other’s emergency contact.

 

The allegation of cheating was denied

After careful consideration, the majority of the panel has determined as follows:

•           Mr. Saran knowingly used prohibited material in answering questions in the solicitor exam.

•           Mr. Saran made false and/or misleading statements to the Law Society contrary to By-Law 4, section 8(2); and

•           Mr. Saran is not and was not of good character. His use of prohibited material during his sitting of the solicitor exam on November 19, 2021, was serious misconduct. This misconduct was compounded and continued by his misrepresentations to the Law Society when he applied for licensing in 2022 and during the Law Society’s investigation of his use of the prohibited material in the examination...

First, the nature of the transgression we are concerned with is grave. It strikes at the heart of any and every lawyer’s core, his or her integrity. Mr. Saran cheated on an admission examination while attempting to gain his call to the Bar of Ontario. The duration of his dishonesty is likewise concerning. Though his cheating on the November 2021 solicitor exam is a single event, it is not isolated because when he was confronted with it, he prevaricated, choosing to mislead Law Society investigators over an extended period of time.

 Second, remorse must be premised on acknowledgement and acceptance of responsibility for the underlying wrong one has done. Mr. Saran has not done this fully. His acknowledgement has been dosed out parsimoniously. When the cheating happened, he kept it secret. When confronted, he falsely denied having received any materials, both in writing and verbally over many months. Eventually, he acknowledged having unwittingly gained access to the prohibited material. It is clear that Mr. Saran has demonstrated that he regrets being in the position he is in. However, he has not demonstrated remorse, as he has not fully and freely acknowledged the underlying wrong he has done. However, we recognize that we cannot require that remorse be shown where the misconduct is denied. That said, we are not assisted in finding present good character by a showing of remorse.

 

Dissent

 

Notwithstanding my concerns about the numerous inaccuracies in the ASF, given the totality of the evidence received from UU, KK and the Anonymous person, it is evident that Mr. Saran was in possession of prohibited materials that included both questions and answers.  According to the ASF, both the evidence received from the Anonymous person and UU, contained some questions and several answers.  I find that it is quite plausible that Mr. Saran may not have known that he was in possession of prohibited materials before March 2022.  As Mr. Saran testified, he  thought he was in possession of study materials for the solicitor exam, that he received from NEG. As such, the questions were not answered falsely on his mobility application. Therefore, I find that Law Society did not meet its burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. Saran made false or misleading representations to the Law Society as part of his licensing process for his mobility application, contrary to section 8(2) of By-Law 4.

 

(Mike Frisch)

Kari Lake Attorney Reciprocally Suspended

The Nevada Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline of a 60-day suspension based on Arizona sanction imposed on an attorney for failed candidate Kari Lake

Blehm was suspended in Arizona for 60 days beginning on July 7, 2024, followed by a one-year probation. Blehm represented defeated Arizona gubernatorial candidate, Kari Lake, in a petition for review of adverse election rulings. Blehm made false assertions to Arizona's appellate courts concerning alleged voting fraud activities at the Runbeck vote processing facility. Blehm frivolously argued that it was an undisputed fact" that 35,563 unaccounted for ballots were added to the total number of ballots at a third-party processing facility. Blehm again misrepresented that "the record indisputably reflects" at least 35,563 election day early ballots were added at Runbeck. Based on these facts, the Arizona hearing panel found Blehm violated Arizona rules of professional conduct equivalent to Nevada's RPC 3.1 (meritorious claims); RPC 3.5(d) (tribunal decorum); RPC 8.2(a) (judicial and legal officials); and RPC 8.4(d) (misconduct). The Arizona panel found five aggravating factors (dishonest or selfish motive, multiple offenses, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct, and substantial experience in the practice of law) and two mitigating factors (absence of a prior disciplinary record and imposition of other penalties or sanctions). The Arizona panel further found that Blehm acted knowingly and caused injury to his client, the public, and the legal system.

AZ Mirror reported on the Arizona action

The Arizona State Bar launched the disciplinary case against Blehm and sought a suspension of six months and one day as punishment for Blehm’s role in lying to the Arizona Supreme Court. In an appeal of Lake’s dismissed attempt to nullify her  election loss, Blehm and Washington, D.C., employment attorney Kurt Olsen falsely stated that it was “undisputed fact” that 35,000 illegal ballots were included in Maricopa County’s final vote count. 

No evidence of that claim was provided and the two were later ordered to pay $2,000 in sanctions by the state supreme court. 

Suspensions longer than six months require a lawyer seeking to resume practicing law to undergo an evidentiary hearing and make their case for reinstatement. In a May 21 hearing, attorneys for the Bar told Presiding Disciplinary Judge Margaret Downie that the suspension length was warranted because Blehm submitted blatantly false evidence to the court and has so far failed to show any remorse for doing so. 

A day before his disciplinary hearing, Blehm claimed he was found “guilty without a trial,” in a post on social media site X, formerly Twitter, and on the day of the hearing he failed to show up. 

In its 12-page order, the panel acknowledged that Blehm had violated ethical rules by submitting false statements and jeopardized the reputation of the entire legal process. 

“Respondent’s misrepresentations needlessly expanded the proceedings in the Arizona Supreme Court. And any time an attorney attempts to mislead a judicial tribunal, it brings disrepute to and fosters mistrust of the legal profession,” reads the order. 

But the panel ultimately concluded that approving a suspension longer than six months was unfair, given that Blehm has no previous ethical violations. And, the order notes, the false statements advanced by Blehm and Olsen were easily identified by the state supreme court, minimizing the harm they caused. 

“Is a long-term suspension necessary here to protect the public, maintain the integrity of the profession in the eyes of the public, and deter (Blehm) and other attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct?” asked the panel. “This is (Blehm’s) first disciplinary offense, and the misrepresentations at issue were so blatantly obvious there was little chance the Arizona Supreme Court would be misled by them.”

The order noted, however, that future ethical misconduct from Blehm may be met with harsher punishments. Blehm will also be required to reimburse the State Bar’s legal costs. 

Neither the State Bar nor Blehm responded to requests for comment. 

Olsen, meanwhile, still faces two separate disciplinary hearings scheduled later this month for making false statements in a lawsuit concerning electronic tabulators and in Lake’s election challenges. But, because Olsen is licensed to practice law in Maryland and not Arizona, the highest punishment the State Bar can win in either case is a formal reprimand.

The case is IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF BRYAN J. BLEHM, BAR NO. 9975 (Mike Frisch)

"With Dignity And Respect"

From the web page of the Tennessee Supreme Court

 

January 16, 2025

Today the Tennessee Supreme Court addressed public findings from the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) claiming that the Tennessee Board of Law Examiners (TBLE) and the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program (TLAP), which operate under the authority of the Tennessee Supreme Court, violated the ADA by discriminating against two bar applicants “due to a substance use disorder or mental health disorder.” 

The Court strongly disagrees with DOJ’s assertion that either TBLE or TLAP discriminated against the applicants based on health status or disability. Both TBLE and TLAP follow well-established administrative processes that are designed to avoid discrimination against any applicant. The Court, TBLE, and TLAP have been and remain committed to treating persons with disabilities, including bar applicants with disabilities, with dignity and respect, and in compliance with all legal rights afforded to such applicants.  

From the Department of Justice letter of findings

TBLE and TLAP discriminated against D.S. in Tennessee’s attorney licensing program on the basis of his disability when they subjected him to additional, burdensome examinations based on his use of lawfully prescribed medication for his [Opioid Use Disorder] and forced him to choose between his law license or continued treatment as prescribed as necessary by his treating physician. These conditions were imposed on D.S., even though there was no evidence that his OUD or his use of buprenorphine to treat his OUD in any way impaired his ability to practice law. Indeed, D.S.’s treating physician relayed that he had been successfully treating D.S. for years with buprenorphine, that D.S. had been compliant with his treatment program, that D.S. had never demonstrated any behavior that would indicate a functionally problematic psychiatric or personality disorder, and that D.S. was not physically or psychologically impaired by taking buprenorphine as part of his medication-assisted treatment for OUD. TBLE and TLAP persisted in imposing these conditions even though the entities conducting the required evaluations concluded that D.S. was not using drugs other than his prescribed medication, that there were no signs of cognitive impairment or decreased concentration, and that he had been successful on his prescribed therapy with no legal, educational, or occupational deficiencies or consequences. Because the withholding of a law license was based on D.S.’s disability and his treatment for his disability, TBLE and TLAP discriminated against him in violation of the ADA. Ellen S. v. Florida Bd. of Bar Examiners, 859 F. Supp. 1489, 1494 (S.D. Fla. 1994) (a licensing entity discriminates against qualified disabled applicants by placing additional unnecessary burdens on them and this discrimination can occur even if these applicants are subsequently granted licenses).

C.B. was similarly subjected to restrictions and conditions on his ability to obtain a law license, due to his disability, even though there was no evidence that he was unable to meet the bar admission standards. Even though the TBLE interviewer recommended C.B. for bar admission and indicated that she did not have any concerns regarding C.B.’s honesty and good judgment, ability to conduct himself in accordance with the law and rules of professional conduct, or ability to conduct himself with a high degree of professionalism, honesty and integrity, C.B. was subjected to costly and unnecessary examinations and his law license was subjected to a burdensome 5-year monitoring contract. As a result, C.B. lost his job, and his therapist. TBLE and TLAP persisted in these restrictions even after their own approved evaluator concluded C.B. was fit to practice law to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Because the restrictions on C.B.’s law license were based on his actual or perceived substance use disorder and not on any current inability to meet the bar’s admissions standards, TBLE and TLAP discriminated against C.B. in violation of the ADA.

(Mike Frisch)

No Disbarment For "Brazen Crimes Of Dishonesty"

The New Jersey Supreme rejected a recommendation of disbarment of its Disciplinary Review Board in favor of a five-year suspension.

The Court having determined that a five-year suspension from the practice of law is the appropriate quantum of discipline for respondent's unethical conduct

As is its custom, the court order does not explain its reasoning; rather only the result.

The DRB's sanction discussion

Here, for the 2013 through 2015 tax years, based on respondent’s decision to provide his accountant with false information concerning his firm’s finances, he underreported to the IRS a total of more than $1 million of his firm’s gross receipts and, in 2014, he overstated his firm’s expenses by more than $50,000. Thereafter, for the 2016 through 2018 tax years, respondent escalated his criminal behavior by altogether and willfully failing to file any federal income tax returns, despite his firm earning more than $8 million in gross receipts during that timeframe and, thus, owing a substantial tax obligation to the federal government. Finally, for three quarters during the 2017 tax year, respondent willfully failed to report and remit to the IRS a total of $56,904 in payroll taxes that he had withheld from his employees’ paychecks.

In our view, respondent’s protracted criminal scheme to evade his significant tax obligations is, arguably, just as egregious as that of the disbarred attorney in Long. Although respondent did not appear to have attempted to frustrate the government’s investigation of his conduct or to place his subordinates in potential legal jeopardy, as occurred in Long, respondent’s criminal conduct spanned a greater timeframe and resulted in a far more serious tax loss to the federal government. Significantly, unlike Long, who criminally failed to report more than $800,000 in personal income during a four-year period, resulting in a $388,362 tax loss to the federal government, respondent’s criminal conduct (1) spanned six years, during which time he concealed millions of dollars of his firm’s gross receipts from the IRS; (2) resulted in diverse, serious criminal tax infractions, including repeatedly failing to remit payroll taxes that he had withheld from his employees’ paychecks; and (3) caused a staggering $715,746 total tax loss to the federal government. Moreover, unlike the attorney in Long, respondent did not fully satisfy his restitution obligation to the federal government at sentencing.

In contrast to Long, who ultimately accepted responsibility for his crimes, respondent, as described by Judge Beetlestone, “could not bring himself to clearly accept responsibility, suggesting, rather, that” his criminal behavior was the product of recklessness and “that his crimes [were] simply errors of omission.” Consequently, we echo Judge Beetlestone’s concern that respondent has failed to appreciate the seriousness of his criminal actions by claiming, erroneously, that his conduct “happened because . . . he wasn’t paying attention.”

Conclusion

In conclusion, respondent willfully cast aside his successful legal practice by his brazen crimes of dishonesty towards the federal government, which suffered a substantial tax loss far greater than that caused by attorneys who have 25 received terms of suspension for committing similar tax related crimes. As the government noted during sentencing, respondent willfully failed, for years, to fulfill his significant tax obligations, even after the IRS had warned him that its civil examination had become a criminal investigation. Given the staggering tax loss to the federal government that resulted from respondent’s prolonged criminal scheme, his inability to clearly accept remorse for his actions before a federal judge, and his lack of any compelling mitigating factors, we determine that respondent is “‘[in]capable of meeting the standards that must guide all members of the profession.’” In re Cammarano, 219 N.J. 415, 421 (2014) (quoting In re Harris, 182 N.J. 594, 609 (2005)). Thus, to effectively protect the public and preserve confidence in the bar, we recommend to the Court that respondent be disbarred.

Additionally, in Member Hoberman’s view, respondent’s repeated failure to remit to the federal government payroll taxes that he had withheld from his employees’ paychecks, despite his fiduciary duty to do so, constitutes the knowing misappropriation of escrow funds, in violation of the principles of In re Hollendonner, 102 N.J. 21 (1985).

Vice-Chair Boyer and Members Campelo, Rodriguez, and Spencer voted to recommend the imposition of a three-year suspension, retroactive to respondent’s February 1, 2023 temporary suspension, with the condition that, prior to reinstatement, he demonstrate either that he has fully satisfied his restitution obligation to the federal government or has complied with a recognized restitution repayment plan with the federal government. 

(Mike Frisch)

Bad Advice

A justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has accepted a recommendation for a one-year suspension with six-months and a day served for an attorney's incorrect legal advice to a client and failure to cooperate with successor counsel in the same matter

In 2001, Stanley Santana was arrested on several charges and neglected to appear for a court date, resulting in a warrant issuing. In 2013 he hired the respondent to clear that warrant, as well as another warrant issued in connection with a driver's license matter. The respondent successfully moved to remove the defaults and obtained a dismissal of some of the pending charges; what remained was a charge of possession with intent to distribute heroin and the driver's license matter.

Santana was a permanent resident who hoped to become a citizen, and informed the respondent that preserving a path to citizenship was his primary goal in resolving the pending maters. The respondent recommended that Santana accept a six-month continuance without a finding (CWOF), advising him that a CWOF for less than one year would have no immigration-related consequences. Following that advice, on March 22, 2017, Santana admitted to sufficient facts as to one count of possession of heroin with intent to distribute, and the case was continued without a finding for six months.

Contrary to the respondent's advice, Santana's CWOF could indeed have serious immigration consequences.

A second opinion

A subsequent conversation with an immigration attorney alerted Santana to the fact that the respondent had given him incorrect advice. When Santana then confronted the respondent about this, the respondent essentially doubled down, insisting (incorrectly) that Santana's six-month CWOF would not count as a conviction under Federal law.

Successor counsel

On August 18, 2018 Santana retained successor counsel, Attorney Murat Erkan, for the purpose of seeking postconviction relief from the CWOF. Attorney Erkan sent the respondent a letter that day requesting Santana's file, and when the respondent did not reply, he sent follow-up letters on August 27 and December 27; the latter included a request for an affidavit regarding the CWOF.

Finally replying on January 16, 2019, the respondent denied ever advising Santana that there would be no immigration consequences from the CWOF, a statement the committee found to be knowingly false in light of the evidence to the contrary. The respondent sent successor counsel only an incomplete case file and no affidavit, and never responded to several further requests for the items. Nevertheless, in April 2019 Attorney Erkan successfully moved to vacate Santana's admission to sufficient facts, with the government ultimately agreeing to imposition of only pretrial probation -- a resolution that would not count as a conviction for Federal immigration purposes.

Finally, Santana was contacted by a "friend and representative" of Respondent

On July 30, 2019, approximately two weeks before the hearing on the motion to vacate, Familia sent several text messages to Santana, including one claiming that the respondent had asked Familia to contact Santana. Those texts were followed by a phone call, where Familia attempted to get Santana to admit that he was satisfied with the respondent's representation.

Familia reached out again to Santana in April of 2020, during the pendency of this disciplinary case. As a result, Santana met with Familia, at Familia's office. At that meeting Familia told Santana that the respondent would prepare an affidavit for Santana's signature, and warned Santana that the respondent could sue him.

Sanction

In sum, after applying the Kane framework, considering the additional misconduct, weighing the factors in aggravation, and examining the most similar cases, I conclude that the board's recommended sanction is indeed appropriate. A suspension of one year, with six months and one day to serve, is not markedly disparate from similar cases. Further, given the respondent's deficiencies in understanding his ethical obligations, it is also appropriate that his reinstatement be conditioned on his taking and passing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination and attending five hours of continuing legal education classes pre-approved by bar counsel.

(Mike Frisch)

Channeling George Costanza

A justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has approved a proposed three-year suspension for misconduct in three matters

In the first, he represented a client in a chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. In the course of the representation the respondent was twice sanctioned by the bankruptcy court for "flagrantly" mispresenting the law: on one issue he cited cases that, in the court's words, "[stood] for the exact opposite of what [the respondent] claims," and on another he egregiously misquoted a key statutory definition by "omitting most of the words in the definition." The court ordered the respondent to complete a three-credit legal ethics course; although the respondent enrolled in such a course he never completed it.

In the second matter, also a bankruptcy, the respondent neglected to respond to discovery, resulting in a ruling that any objections were waived. After a motion to compel, he failed to produce documents as ordered. Finding no credible reason for the respondent's failures, and that such failures prejudiced his client, the bankruptcy judge imposed sanctions of nearly $10,000 to be paid personally by the respondent, and also defaulted the respondent's client, exempting a $91,673.45 debt from discharge.

Finally, the respondent represented a mother and daughter in several matters connected to a bankruptcy, foreclosure, and eviction. During the course of these proceedings he: (1) made false statements regarding his compensation in disclosures filed with the court; (2) retained as compensation thousands of dollars from a settlement, well beyond his disclosed fee; (3) failed to notify the mother of a $34,735.40 check he received -- sale proceeds from her mother's estate -- while simultaneously filing an interpleader action in the Probate Court seeking additional compensation out of that estate; (4) represented the mother without a written retainer agreement in place; and (5) filed several papers in the Probate Court misidentifying himself, under oath, as the mother's attorney or the fiduciary of the estate, when his representation had concluded by that time.

The court rejected Respondent's arguments in favor of a reprimand rather than suspension.

Here the respondent had much more than that solitary violation; as the board wrote, "[h]e spoke and wrote numerous lies in three separate matters." And on top of the repeated instances of deceit, the respondent's conduct established an array of other violations which, though varying in severity, must be accounted for, as must the aggravating factors. See Matter of Kerlinsky, 428 Mass. 656, 666 (1999) ("The cumulative effect of these violations further supports our conclusion that an additional period of suspension is appropriate," resulting in a three-year suspension). See also Matter of O'Donnell, 23 Mass. Att'y Disc. Rep. 508, 514, n.3 (2007) (false testimony under oath alongside misuse of client funds justified indefinite suspension); Matter of Early, 21 Mass. Att'y Disc. Rep. 220, 226 (2005) (three-year suspension for numerous violations including misrepresentation made under oath). I therefore conclude that the board's recommended sanction of a three-year suspension is appropriate, given the seriousness and extent of the respondent's misconduct.

(Mike Frisch)

"Brazen Acts Of Deception" And "Shameless Financial Exploitation"

In a case that has spawned disciplinary sanctions in multiple jurisdictions, the New Jersey Supreme Court has imposed a five-year suspension of an attorney for misconduct in the representation of wrongly convicted client.

The Court having determined that a five-year suspension from the practice of law is the appropriate quantum of discipline for respondent’s unethical conduct

The Disciplinary Review Board described the misconduct and had recommended that he be disbarred

respondent performed minimal work in furtherance of the pardon petitions, which pro bono counsel had prepared and
filed months before respondent’s retention. Further, following the issuance of the gubernatorial pardons, the NCIC petition became a straightforward application that guaranteed his clients a total of $1.5 million for their wrongful imprisonment. Respondent, however, failed to submit any evidence to justify his $500,000 contingent fee in connection with that risk-free process. As an experienced attorney with bar admissions in six jurisdictions, respondent knew that his decision to unilaterally take a one-third contingent fee from the $1.5 million NCIC award was in no way proportional to the services he had rendered, considering the minimal work required for that application. Nevertheless, knowing that his clients lacked the ability to comprehend his overreach, respondent seized upon that opportunity to enrich himself at their expense.

We find respondent’s decision to take a contingency fee from that award unquestionably dishonest, demonstrating that he placed his own pecuniary gain above the welfare of his clients. Indeed, both McCollum and Brown appeared to have received less than half of the $750,000 award to which they were each entitled, despite needing those funds to rebuild their lives after decades of wrongful incarceration.

Respondent’s misconduct, however, did not end there. In May and October 2016, following the depletion of McCollum’s entire NCIC award, respondent arranged for McCollum to receive two additional high-interest litigation loans, totaling $65,000. Although McCollum could not comprehend the consequences of the loans, respondent continued to misrepresent to MFI that he had explained the loan terms to his client.

Thereafter, during a December 2016 mediation session in connection with the stepbrother’s civil litigation before the EDNC, respondent conducted a detailed presentation describing McCollum’s serious intellectual disabilities, following which the Town of Red Springs questioned McCollum’s competence to enter into a settlement. To salvage his ability to secure a quick settlement and a substantial legal fee, respondent requested a new evaluation of McCollum by the same neuropsychologist who previously had concluded that McCollum lacked the capacity to make everyday decisions. However, this time, the neuropsychologist concluded that McCollum was competent to manage his own affairs.

Following the neuropsychologist’s assessment, respondent requested that the EDNC approve a $1 million settlement to resolve the stepbrothers’ claims against the Town of Red Springs, in addition to his $403,493.96 in alleged fees and costs. In support of his application, respondent misrepresented to the EDNC that McCollum was competent to enter into both the Fee Agreement and the settlement. Moreover, respondent maintained that his significant fee was justified based on his procurement of the pardons for the stepbrothers, his successful NCIC petition, and his appointment of a guardian for Brown. Respondent, however, concealed from the EDNC the fact that he already had received $500,000 in grossly excessive compensation for such services, much of which were substantially reliant on the work product of the stepbrothers’ prior, pro bono counsel.

One month later, in May 2017, the EDNC denied respondent’s request, finding the neuropsychologist’s recent assessment “unpersuasive” and appointing Tarlton as McCollum’s guardian ad litem. During the August 2017 hearing before the EDNC concerning McCollum’s competency, respondent again insisted that his client had the capacity to settle his claims, despite acknowledging that McCollum’s “lack of mental capacity” was a crucial component of his civil claims. Thereafter, when the EDNC directed the parties to submit recommendations of new mental health experts to evaluate McCollum, respondent expressed his receptiveness to the neuropsychologist’s suggestion that he “have some rehearsal with” McCollum regarding the basic aspects of his finances. The very next day, respondent moved to discharge Tarlton as McCollum’s guardian and to discontinue any further evaluations of his client, falsely asserting that there was no credible evidence that his client was intellectually impaired.

Subsequently, following a forensic psychiatrist’s determination that McCollum clearly lacked the capacity to manage his own affairs, the EDNC declared the Fee Agreement invalid and denied respondent’s request to terminate Tarlton as guardian, emphasizing that respondent “was plainly on notice that his potential clients had intellectual disabilities and that their abilities to proceed without a guardian were at issue.” Although the EDNC approved the proposed settlement with the Town of Red Springs, it declined to award respondent any legal fees and, at Tarlton’s request, it removed respondent from the representation for good cause.

We view respondent’s attempt to obtain a swift settlement and a substantial payout in his favor as a disturbing course of deception towards his adversary and a federal court. At first, respondent meticulously detailed McCollum’s serious intellectual disabilities to his adversary during settlement negotiations. However, when his adversary and the EDNC questioned whether McCollum’s intellectual limitations precluded him from participating in the settlement without a guardian, respondent abruptly changed his position to salvage his substantial legal fee. Specifically, he arranged for the neuropsychologist to issue a new opinion, in which he concluded, contrary to his earlier assessment and the opinions of numerous medical professionals who had evaluated McCollum, that his client was capable of settling his claims. When that tactic failed, respondent attempted to terminate any additional medical evaluations of McCollum along with his court-appointed guardian, demonstrating a total disregard for the interests of his vulnerable client, who clearly required such protections. Further, in anticipation of an independent evaluation of his client, respondent openly expressed his willingness to have “some rehearsal” with McCollum regarding his financial affairs.

Respondent’s brazen acts of deception towards a federal court, coupled with his shameless financial exploitation of his vulnerable, intellectually impaired clients, clearly support a recommendation for his disbarment.

Admissions

Respondent earned admission to the New Jersey and Florida bars in 2004; to the New York bar in 2003; to the North Carolina bar in 2013; to the Texas bar in 2014; and to the Washington bar in 2015. During the relevant timeframe, he maintained a practice of law in Orlando, Florida.

Scorecard

Effective September 22, 2022, the Supreme Court of Washington suspended respondent for five years in connection with his misconduct underlying this matter. In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Megaro, 2022 Wash. LEXIS 499 (2022).

Effective April 12, 2023, the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department disbarred respondent in connection with his misconduct underlying this matter. In re Megaro, 215 A.D.3d 67 (2023).

Effective August 25, 2023, the Supreme Court of Texas, Board of Disciplinary Appeals, suspended respondent for five years, on consent, in connection with his misconduct underlying this matter. In the Matter of Patrick Michael Megaro, State Bar Card No. 24091024, 86 Texas Bar Journal 737 (2023).

Finally, effective October 21, 2023, the Supreme Court of Florida imposed a “disciplinary revocation” of respondent’s admission to the Florida bar in connection with his misconduct underlying this matter. In re Disciplinary Revocation of Megaro, 2023 Fla. LEXIS 1457 (2023).

Disciplinary proceedings are pending in North Carolina. (Mike Frisch)

Get Mad, Not Even

A public censure has been imposed by the Tennessee Board on Professional Responsibility 

Ms. Bice represented a client in a child support modification case. During the case, the client posted a negative online public Google Review of Ms. Bice’s legal services. Ms. Bice posted a public response with detailed confidential information relating to the representation of the client, including references to client’s minimal payment toward her retainer fee, a contempt action brought against client for failure to pay child support and her inability to pay, the client’s disability and disability attorney, the actual hearing date, and reference to various attorney-client communications. After the client discharged Ms. Bice’s services, she did not file to withdraw her representation for seven (7) weeks and delayed doing so until the day of the client’s hearing.

In addition, between 2015 and 2023, Ms. Bice also posted online responses to four (4) negative client reviews, revealing confidential information about former clients’ representation, including disclosure of fee amounts paid, legal advice given, actions/inactions by the clients, and other information that would not have been available as public record or generally known. By these acts, Ms. Bice has violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6(a) (confidentiality of information), 1.9(c) (duties to former clients), and 1.16(a)(3) & (d) (declining or terminating representation), and is hereby Publicly Censured for these violations. Ms. Bice is further ordered to complete three (3) hours of Continuing Legal Education (CLE) about client confidentiality and online/social media use within ninety (90) days of this order. The CLE hours are in addition to the three (3) ethics hours already required by the Commission on Continuing Legal Education.

(Mike Frisch)

When The Bedbugs Bite

The New York Appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department imposed reciprocal discipline of disbarment based on sanctions imposed in Virginia

By contingency fee agreement signed September 13, 2018, the respondent represented Renee Sallit and her family in a claim against a rental company and the owner of a rental home. Sallit and her family rented a vacation home in Virginia Beach in July 2018. The house was infested with bedbugs and several family members were bitten. After failing to get a full refund from the rental company, Sallit hired the respondent to represent her and her family members in making a claim.

Sallit stated that communication from the respondent was poor from the beginning of the representation and that “about 75% of the time” the respondent failed to timely respond to Sallit’s communication attempts. The respondent did not communicate with Sallit from April 16, 2019, to May 16, 2019. On August 19, 2019, Sallit sent a text message to the respondent, to which the respondent replied one month later on September 19, 2019.

On October 9, 2019, the respondent filed a complaint on behalf of Sallit and her family in Richmond Circuit Court. The complaint sought $5 million in relief from the defendants, the property owner, Evan Reiter, and the rental company, Sandbridge Blue LLC. On November 10, 2020, the case was transferred to the Circuit Court for the City of Virginia Beach by agreement of the parties.

On July 6, 2021, Sallit sent a text message to the respondent to ask if she needed to be present at an upcoming August 2, 2021 hearing. The respondent replied that Sallit did not need to attend and that only the lawyers needed to be there. The respondent did not appear at the August 2, 2021 hearing, and pursuant to the respondent’s instructions, Sallit did not appear. By final order entered August 17, 2021, the case was dismissed due to the respondent’s failure to appear.

On September 16, 2021, the respondent filed a Notice of Appeal in the Circuit Court for the City of Virginia Beach, but did not file a Petition for Appeal with the Supreme Court of Virginia.

In Virginia

The [Virginia State Bar Disciplinary] Board was particularly troubled by the harm caused to Sallit by the respondent’s conduct. The respondent abandoned Sallit’s case and denied her a day in court and compensation for her alleged injuries. The respondent also did not cooperate and actually obstructed the VSB’s investigation of his conduct.

Based upon the respondent’s misconduct, the nature of that misconduct, and the harm to the client, the VSB, and the public, the Board determined that the appropriate sanction to protect the public and the integrity of the VSB was the revocation of the respondent’s license to practice law, as any lesser sanction would be a disservice to the Virginia legal community and the public at large.

By Memorandum Order of Revocation entered June 12, 2023, the Board revoked the respondent’s license to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia, effective May 19, 2023.

In addition to revoking the respondent’s license to practice law for the misconduct underlying Sallit’s complaint, the Board issued a separate order entered June 14, 2023, again revoking the respondent’s license to practice law for his failure to comply with the Interim Suspension Order dated November 1, 2022.

The respondent did not notify this [New York] Court or the Grievance Committee of the Virginia orders of discipline as required by 22 NYCRR 1240.13(d).

(Mike Frisch)

A Pennsylvania Suspension

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has placed a Montoursville attorney on temporary suspension

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of January, 2025, having received no response to a Recommendation of the Disciplinary Board, Malcolm S. Mussina is placed on temporary suspension until further action by this Court. See Pa.R.D.E. 208(f) (5). He shall comply with the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217.

Respondent's rights to petition for dissolution or amendment of this Order and to request accelerated disposition of charges underlying this order are specifically preserved. See Pa.R.D.E. 208(f)(4) and (f)(8).

This Order constitutes an imposition of public discipline. See Pa.R.D.E. 402(c)(3) (providing an exception to the confidentiality requirement of Rule 402 when “an order of temporary suspension from the practice of law is entered by the Court pursuant to Enforcement Rule 208(f)”).

It appears that there is a baseball connection (per the Society for American Baseball Research)

Michael Cole Mussina was born on December 8, 1968, in Montoursville, Pennsylvania, a town of under 6,000 in Lycoming County, in the north central part of the state. Regarding his hometown in 1996, Mussina noted, “Until about five years ago, we had four street lights. It’s not large by any means. You can get from one side of town to the other in about five minutes by car — maybe three minutes if you don’t hit any lights.”

The oldest child of parents Malcolm Mussina, a lawyer, and Eleanor (Ellie) Mussina, a nurse, Mike had one sibling, Mark, who was born in 1972. Mark also achieved a degree of athletic success as a three-sport standout at Montoursville High School, being named first team all-conference in football, basketball, and baseball as a senior. He went on to play football and baseball at Susquehanna University and earned a degree in mathematics. Professionally he has worked in real estate, but is primarily known as a sports radio host. As of 2016, the entire family still lived in Montoursville.

Mike Mussina showed athletic prowess from an early age, with snapshot evidence of him throwing perfect football spirals at age 3. Father Malcolm noted, “How does that happen? Nobody could have taught him that. It was just perfect.” Unusually gifted and driven, Mussina spent hours upon hours as a youth honing his athletic skills on nearby fields and in the family basement, where he used strips of tape to make a strike zone on the wall, occasionally waking the family on weekends when an errant throw would miss the box and strike a radiator.

(Mike Frisch)

Resignation Allowed

The Alberta Law Society allowed the resignation of an attorney found to have failed to forward the file of a client to new counsel and also had made untrue statements

(a)  Mr. Samfiru made numerous representations to N.W., that he knew, or should have known, to be untrue. Such statements included Mr. Samfiru telling N.W. on July 28, 2021, that:

•      “no one is currently representing you”
•      Mr. Samfiru learned at the same time as N.W. that K.H. had a new job.
•      “we could not direct you to [K.H.]. She was an unemployed lawyer”.
•      K.H. agreed to pay Samfiru Tumarkin’s fees without concern for the sum.

Background

Mr. Samfiru is a principal partner with Samfiru Tumarkin, which provides legal services in Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. At the time of this application, Mr. Samfiru was an active member of the LSA and he had no disciplinary record with the LSA. Mr. Samfiru was admitted to the LSA on October 29, 2020, but he has never actively practiced in Alberta. Mr. Samfiru has no open or closed files, and he does not handle trust funds or any client property in Alberta.

Samfiru is also a member of the Law Society of British Columbia, but he practices primarily in the Province of Ontario. Mr. Samfiru was admitted to the Law Society of Ontario on September 24, 2003.

Resignation

This matter is unusual in that most section 32 applications involve retiring members or members who have undertaken not to practice. In this case Mr. Samfiru will continue to be a practicing lawyer in Ontario. Despite this distinguishing fact, the Committee is relying upon the Undertakings of Mr. Samfiru, including that he will not apply for reinstatement in Alberta.

Based on the evidence established by the Statement of Admitted Facts, the Committee has determined that it is in the best interests of the public to accept the application of Mr. Samfiru to resign pursuant to section 32, effective July 31, 2024.  We find that it is not likely that Mr. Samfiru would have been disbarred had the citations been proven. The Committee is of the view that the public interest will still be served without requiring either a public hearing or a deemed disbarment.

(Mike Frisch)

Sanction In Tennessee

A recent sanction imposed by the Tennessee Supreme Court

Effective January 14, 2025, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended John Edward Hutson from the practice of law for two (2) years, with six (6) months being an active suspension pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 12.2, and the remainder served on probation conditioned upon compliance with the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program and employing a practice monitor at his expense for six (6) months following reinstatement.

A Petition for Discipline containing one complaint was filed by the Board alleging that Mr. Hutson knowingly provided financial assistance to his client, entered into a business transaction with his client to obtain services for repayment of the funds provided to the client, and made overtures and requests for a personal relationship with his client during the representation that materially limited his representation of the client and was prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Mr. Hutson executed a Conditional Guilty Plea acknowledging his conduct violated Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct 1.7(a)(2) (conflict of interest), 1.8 (conflict of interest), and 8.4(a) and (d) (misconduct).

(Mike Frisch)

Resignation Accepted

The Ohio Supreme Court has accepted the resignation of an attorney who had gained notoriety for sending feces-smeared mail to politicians

2024-1778. In re Resignation of Steinle.

On application for retirement or resignation of Richard John Steinle, Attorney Registration No. 0030785, last known business address in Mogadore, Ohio. Application accepted as resignation with disciplinary action pending. Brunner, J., not participating.

Cleveland.com reported on the conduct

A former court attorney who mailed some three dozen letters smeared with human feces to Republican politicians apologized Monday and said he acted out of “blind anger and frustration” at the state of the country.

Richard Steinle, 79, told a federal magistrate judge during a hearing that he sent the letters out of “frustration and rage.“ He was sentenced to two years on probation and ordered to pay a $9,500, the maximum fine under federal law.

“I take full responsibility for my vile and repulsive actions,” Steinle said.

U.S. District Magistrate Judge Jennifer Dowdell Armstrong handed down the sentence in a case that drew nationwide attention after the letters began popping up at elected officials’ offices, particularly in the Ohio Statehouse.

From August 2021 through July 29, 2022, Steinle sent letters to U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, all 25 Republicans in the Ohio Senate, to federal judges in California and elected officials in Washington, D.C., and Kentucky. The letters typically contained notes calling the politicians “racist” or “pig.”

U.S. Postal Service inspectors investigating the case stopped three letters from being sent from the Lakemore Post Office near Akron to elected officials in Columbus.

Steinle previously pleaded guilty to seven counts of sending injurious materials through the mail.

In several decades as an attorney, Steinle worked for the 5th Ohio District Court of Appeals and later launched and ran mediation programs in Summit and Portage county courts.

He was fired in 2017 from Portage County Common Pleas Court. He alleged in a lawsuit that he was retaliated against after he wrote a letter to the editor published on cleveland.com that criticized Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine and the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation.

Steinle said he’s a veteran who served in the Vietnam War. He said he protested the war with other veterans upon returning home, launching five decades of interest in politics.

 

When You Kiss A Police Detective

The Nevada Supreme Court has accepted an attorney's consent to disbarment after his reinstatement from an earlier suspension

The declaration states that Crawford freely and voluntarily consents to disbarment after having had the opportunity to consult with counsel. Crawford acknowledges that he violated the terms of a reinstatement order issued by this court and that the State Bar provided documentation with an SCR 102(4) petition that shows Crawford violated RPC 1.8(j) (conflict of interest: sexual relations with a client), RPC 8.4(a) (misconduct: violation or attempted violation of the RPCs), and RPC 8.4(b) (misconduct: criminal act that reflects adversely on fitness of a lawyer). Finally, Crawford concedes that the material facts in the petition for disbarment by consent are true and admits that he could not successfully defend against a disciplinary complaint.

The case is IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF DOUGLAS C. CRAWFORD, BAR NO. 181

From the earlier case

Under the conditional guilty plea agreement, Crawford admitted to 65 violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, primarily involving misappropriation of client funds, which totaled approximately $398,345. ” 

Sanction

Having reviewed the record and briefs regarding this matter, we conclude that the mitigating circumstances outweigh the aggravating circumstances, and as a result, a five-year suspension is the appropriate discipline. We impose, however, strict requirements that Crawford must meet before applying for reinstatement. First, as required under SCR 116(5), Crawford must successfully complete the State Bar examination, including the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination. Second, Crawford must maintain his gambling recovery efforts, which he offered to the supreme court and the State Bar of Nevada, including attending his weekly gamblers anonymous and 12-step program meetings along with continued weekly meetings with his psychiatrist. Third, Crawford must not engage in the unauthorized practice of law or handle any client funds or trust accounts during his suspension. Additionally, as a condition of his possible reinstatement, Crawford must willingly accept to work with a mentor and continue to refrain from handling any client funds or trust accounts for a reasonable amount of time following reinstatement. The length of this mentorship requirement should be determined at any reinstatement hearing. Fourth, Crawford must make restitution for the funds misappropriated. Crawford must first make any restitution necessary to clients for amounts he misappropriated. Then, he must make restitution to the Client Security Fund for the amounts it paid to Crawford's clients.

In Matter of Discipline of Crawford, No. 51724, 2-3 (Nev. Feb. 18, 2009)

The Reno Gazette Journal reported in May 2022

The email arrived on a Tuesday in April, sent to authorities by a frightened but fed-up former employee of longtime Southern Nevada attorney Douglas Crawford.

“There are many women who would like to come forward about sexual harassment,” the woman wrote, according to court documents obtained by the Reno Gazette Journal, “but are scared and do not know how. Some have considered filing police reports.”

That email would prompt Las Vegas police to launch an immediate criminal investigation into Crawford, 67, whose decades-long career as a lawyer in Nevada is shadowed by disciplinary suspensions and a criminal conviction stemming from a gambling addiction.

On Thursday, nearly two months after that email and one day after an undercover police operation at Crawford’s downtown law office, authorities arrested the lawyer near the Nevada-Arizona border, records show.

As of Friday, he faced five counts of open or gross lewdness, although investigators wrote in court documents filed this week that they expected more allegations to surface following his arrest, which could lead to more charges.

During their investigation, those documents show, detectives identified four alleged victims — all former employees of Crawford — and established an alleged pattern of sexual misconduct and bribery that dates back to January 2018 and “extended to clients he was representing as well.”

The allegations against Crawford range from groping to kissing his female employees “even after the victims told him to stop.”

But, according to the records, the most serious accusation by one of his employees stems from an incident in the attorney's bedroom that allegedly occurred after the employee dropped off work documents at his home.

Investigators believe that “the charge of Sexual Assault should be considered” by prosecutors in connection with that encounter, the records show.

According to the documents, the former employees also described sexual encounters between Crawford and his clients that, on numerous occasions, they said, occurred inside his office. Those encounters were captured by security cameras, and video feeds from those cameras "were in the law office for all employees to view."

Crawford's behavior during an undercover police operation on Wednesday fit those descriptions, the documents said. 

That day, a female detective posing as a potential client arrived for a consultation with Crawford, and during the appointment, according to police, Crawford tried to kiss the detective on the lips.

"At the conclusion of the operation," investigators wrote, the undercover detective said "if she did not know what she was walking into, she believed she would have been caught off guard by Crawford's sexual advances."

In a video posted this month to his Facebook page, Crawford announced he was hiring for several positions.

"Things are going well here at Douglas Crawford law, but we are really busy. I am in need of additional staff," he said. "Reach out there for me, folks, find somebody that wants to work here at Douglas Crawford Law. It's a lot of fun, and I pay well."

Earlier this year, several of Crawford’s employees all resigned on the same day, according to the court documents. After receiving the resignations, Crawford called the women into his office and asked "if they were going to report him for sexual harassment and offered them a substantial pay raise if they didn’t quit.”

According to the former employees, Crawford would "shower them with gifts and money after touching them inappropriately or making sexual comments in what they believed was an attempt to keep them quiet about what was happening.”

“Most of the victims were young, just beginning their careers,” investigators wrote, “and they believed reporting to law enforcement may jeopardize their future career opportunities in the field of law.

Crawford has been licensed to practice law in Nevada since 1985.

His legal troubles began in 2007, when he was accused of misappropriating hundreds of thousands of dollars of his clients’ funds to support his gambling addiction. He later pleaded guilty to two felony counts of theft, leading the State Bar of Nevada to suspend him for five years.

In 2015, records show, he was reinstated to practice law in the state by the Nevada Supreme Court after completing several requirements set by the state bar, including attending meetings for his gambling addiction, where he met one of his alleged victims in the lewdness case, police said.

Crawford is scheduled to appear in court on Tuesday morning, court records show. As of Friday evening, he remained in Las Vegas police custody at a jail located just a half-mile from his law office.

(Mike Frisch)

Growing Pains And Grave Concerns

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has accepted an attorney's resignation with a concurrence that expressed "grave concerns" about the delay in taking action in the disciplinary process

Jones is aware the OBA opened an investigation into a grievance filed against him in the following matter:

DC-22-82: A grievance regarding eleven felony charges brought against Jones, including Count 1: Conspiracy to Defraud the State; Counts 2-7: Offering False or Forged Instrument for Record; Counts 8-10: Manufacturing CDS, To Wit: Marijuana; and Court 11: Pattern of Criminal Offenses. On December 2, 2024, Jones entered a plea of no contest to Counts 1 through 7 and received a 10-year deferred sentence. Counts 8 through 11 were dismissed. See State of Oklahoma v. Jones, Logan Michael, CF-2022-00137, in the District Court of Garvin County, Oklahoma.

COMBS, J., concurring specially:

I concur in the approval of Respondent's resignation pending disciplinary proceedings pursuant to Rule 8.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2021, ch. 1, app. 1-A. I write separately to express my surprise at the Bar Association's decision not to file a Rule 6 disciplinary proceeding against Respondent so that it could seek an emergency interim suspension of Respondent's license to practice law pursuant to Rule 6.2A of the RGDP, 5 O.S.2021, ch. 1, app. 1-A. Instead, it appears from the date of the grievance (i.e., Grievance No. DC-22-82, meaning it was filed in 2022) that the Bar Association sat on this matter for two years, essentially giving Respondent the opportunity to continue practicing law for those two years despite his indictment by a multicounty grand jury for crimes demonstrating dishonesty and unfitness to practice law (i.e., six felony counts of offering false or forged instruments for recordation in violation of 21 O.S.2021, § 463). It also appears Respondent took advantage of that opportunity to practice law on several occasions since his indictment in June of 2022. If our goals truly are "to protect the interests of the public and to preserve the integrity of the courts and the legal profession," State ex rel. OBA v. Abdoveis, 2024 OK 55, ¶ 7, 551 P.3d 320, 326, then the Bar Association should have asked this Court to suspend Respondent's license two years ago.

I also have grave concerns regarding the status of any disciplinary action against Respondent's co-defendant, Eric Brandon Brown, who is also an attorney licensed to practice law in Oklahoma. At the same time Respondent was indicted, Mr. Brown was indicted for the very same crimes. At this point, it appears his criminal case has already concluded and been expunged. That shouldn't necessarily mean that he is immune from professional discipline pursuant to Rule 6 of the RGDP. Yet he has continued to practice law with impunity ever since his indictment in June of 2022. The Bar Association should have filed a Rule 6 disciplinary proceeding against Mr. Brown and sought his interim suspension pursuant to Rule 6.2A of the RGDP; and if circumstances developed to suggest that Mr. Brown should not be subject to ultimate discipline, the Bar Association could have so informed this Court. As it stands, we are left to wonder what, if anything, has transpired.

Newson6.com Tulsa reported on the criminal charges

Oklahoma's attorney general announced criminal charges against two Tulsa-based attorneys Wednesday.

The AG’s office accused them of running an illegal medical marijuana scheme that involved hundreds of marijuana grow operations.

Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics director Donnie Anderson said the charges were a result of a 14-month investigation and multi-county grand jury indictments.

Logan Jones and Eric Brown of the Jones Brown law firm in Tulsa are at the center of the investigation. The OBN was tipped off that the two were illegally obtaining state licenses for out-of-state medical marijuana business owners.

“Directed medical marijuana businesses to sign consulting agreements with Jones Brown’s employees who would act as ghost owners of the medical marijuana operations,” state attorney general John O’Connor said.

The attorneys charged $3,000 per year for the "ghost owner" to act as an Oklahoma resident. According to state law, an operation has to be 75 percent owned by a state resident. The false information was filed with the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority and the OBN.

“People are getting these licenses,” Anderson said. “On face value, they look legitimate.

But state authorities said red flags went up when Jones and Brown had hundreds of licenses in their name. During the investigation, OBN agents shut down three illegal operations linked back to the law firm.

“They’re national and international organizations coming into Oklahoma and setting up shop to exploit our laws,” Anderson said.   

Anderson said the implications of the illegal scheme will be far reaching.

“It doesn’t matter what part of this organization you fall under,” Anderson said. “If you participate, if you aid or abet anyone in this operation to further this criminal organization whether laundering money, sex trafficking, human trafficking, labor trafficking -- you will be held accountable.”

The two attorneys each face eight charges. OBN officials said they have hundreds more cases agents are investigating.

(Mike Frisch)

Short Cut

The North Carolina Disciplinary Hearing Commission reinstated an attorney

In 2019, the DHC imposed a two-year suspension, stayed for two years, based on Brooke Webster’s criminal conviction for secret peeping. In 2020, the suspension was activated for noncompliance with conditions of the stay. Webster was eligible for reinstatement in December 2022, but did not file a petition until 2024. The Office of Counsel did not object to the petition and the DHC entered an order reinstating Webster’s license.

The Wilkes Journal-Patriot reported on the original action

A former assistant district attorney in Wilkes and Yadkin counties who pleaded guilty to misdemeanor secret peeping three years ago has lost his license to practice law for two years.

The N.C. State Bar’s Disciplinary Hearing Panel originally suspended Brooke McKinley Webster’s law license for two years in a consent order of discipline entered on Sept. 5, 2019, but in the same order stayed this provided that he meet certain conditions in a two-year period.

This stay was lifted in an order issued Sept. 21 by the State Bar panel and signed by its chairman, Stephanie N. Davis. This order said Webster failed to seek State Bar approval of a clinician to evaluate his psychological condition, failed to undergo the evaluation, failed to provide the bar with quarterly reports from treating clinicians and failed to meet certain other related requirements set by the panel as conditions for the stay.

Webster, 46, of Winston-Salem was charged with misdemeanor secret peeping in April 2017 in a case in which he was accused of using a handheld mirror under a desk to look at a female student at Wake Forest University’s Z. Smith Reynolds Library in Winston-Salem.

He pleaded guilty to this offense in November 2017, but wasn’t convicted then because he entered a deferred-prosecution program with certain conditions, which included that he stay off the Wake Forest campus.

In September 2018, Webster was charged with second-degree trespass for being on the Wake Forest campus. Webster told campus police then that he was using the school as a short-cut, but a prosecutor said a police investigation indicated he was on campus longer than necessary to drive through.

The trespassing charge voided his deferred prosecution agreement, and Webster pleaded guilty to secret peeping and trespassing in January 2019.

The consent order of discipline issued on Sept. 5, 2019, stated that Webster violated rules of professional conduct by committing criminal offenses that reflected adversely on his fitness as a lawyer.

In addition to getting a psychological evaluation and complying with any recommended treatment, the suspension of Webster’s license was stayed last year on the condition that he not violate any more laws or State Bar rules of professional conduct during the two-year period.

The consent order of discipline stated that by “engaging in secret peeping and trespassing, Webster committed criminal offenses reflecting adversely on his trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer.” Webster didn’t dispute anything in the consent order and admitted to certain underlying findings of fact.

It also said that due to Webster’s status as a criminal prosecutor when he was originally charged, “there was considerable media coverage of his arrests, which caused a particularly significant risk of harm to public perception of attorneys and the judicial system.”

Webster resigned as an assistant district attorney here in April 24, 2017, according to Tom Horner, district attorney for Wilkes, Alleghany, Ashe and Yadkin counties. He had worked in the office since 2006.

(Mike Frisch)

"Sexually Charged"

A Grievance Committee of the North Carolina State Bar reprimanded an attorney for a conflict of interest

From about February 2021 to January 2022, you represented client J.P in a civil matter and an unrelated criminal charge. While representing J.P. you sent J.P. romantic and sexually charged text messages, photographs, and videos. However, Rule 1.19 did not specifically prohibit such communications until November 2022, after your representation ended. Nonetheless, as noted in Comment 1 to revised Rule 1.19, sending romantic and sexually charged communications to a client is damaging to the client-lawyer relationship and has always created “an impermissible conflict of interest that cannot be ameliorated by the consent of the client” in violation of Rule 1.7(a)(2). Thus, by engaging in unacceptable and unprofessional romantic and sexually charged communications with your client you engaged in a concurrent conflict of interest in violation of Rule 1.7(a)(2).

(Mike Frisch)