In Re Himmel

533 N.E.2d 790 (1988)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Tammy was injured in a motorcycle accident. She retained Casey to represent her in any personal injury claims. Casey negotiated a settlement on her behalf of $35,000. Casey was to get a 1/3rd fee. In March, Casey got the check, endorsed it and put it into his client trust fund account. Casey then converted the funds. Between 1981 and 1983, Tammy tried to get the money back and eventually, she retained Himmel in order to get the money due her from Casey. Tammy agreed to pay Himmel 1/3rd of what was recovered above the $23,233.34. In April 1983, Himmel drafted an agreement that Casey would pay $75,000 in settlement, and she also agreed not to initiate any criminal charges against Casey. The agreement was executed. Eventually suit had to be filed against the settlement agreement, and eventually, a court awarded Tammy $100,000. If Casey would have satisfied the judgment, Himmel would have gotten $25,588. Charges were brought against Himmel. The complaint stated that at no time did Himmel inform the Commission of Casey's conduct. Eventually, a petition was filed to have Casey suspended from practicing law because of his conversion of funds, his conduct, and his moral turpitude in matter's related to Tammy's claim. Casey was disbarred on November 5, 1985. A hearing was held against Himmel. The Board found that Himmel received unprivileged information that Casey had converted the funds and that he failed to report this misconduct under 1-103(a). The Board also noted that Himmel had been practicing law for 11 years with no prior record of complaints and requested no fee for recovering the $23,233.34. The Board recommended a private reprimand. A review occurred and it was revealed that in fact, Tammy did contact the Board prior to retaining Himmel and that he was only following his client's wishes that a claim not be pursued before the Commission. The Review Board recommended that the complaint be dismissed.