Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
D has been a solo practitioner since she was admitted to the New Jersey bar in 2002. D overcame obstacles early in life and persevered with her studies. Throughout her legal career, she volunteered her time and skill and provided pro bono legal services to underserved clients. She also conducted free legal clinics at her church. She has no prior disciplinary history. The Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE) conducted a random audit of her financial records. The audit identified multiple problems, including commingling and extensive shortages in client trust funds. D conceded she used client funds without permission to pay various expenses but claimed she did not know it was wrong to borrow the money until the OAE investigator told her so. In one matter, D repeatedly transferred client funds from her attorney trust account to her business account, which created a shortfall of $11,636.53. D later deposited $12,000 borrowed from a friend to cover the shortfall. In the second matter, D admitted borrowing $5,000 without permission but stated that she withdrew $3,000 to hire a detective for the case and returned $3,100 when she decided not to proceed, while $2,000 was for her fee. In the third matter, D made a number of withdrawals from $4,000 she held in escrow for a client, and the balance dropped to $3,750 at one point. Dt asserted the shortfalls resulted from failure to pay attention to the books. She replenished the money in time for the closing. In the end, none of D's clients lost money. D drew the line at $12,000 -- a self-imposed limit. D admitted that she considered client funds as a 'line of credit' she could use, without permission, as long as she made the client whole. She further admitted to using funds from one client to pay for another client's needs but claimed she did not know that was improper. At various times, D explained that she never intended to steal from clients and intended to pay the money back at all times. The OAE charged D with multiple instances of knowingly misappropriating client and escrow funds, with violating several Rules of Professional Conduct (RPCs), and with various recordkeeping violations. A Special Ethics Master found that 'sloppy bookkeeping did not cause D to unknowingly borrow client funds. She knowingly did so, and she paid back what she borrowed.' The Special Master recommended that D be disbarred under Wilson and RPC 1:15(a). The Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) unanimously upheld the Special Master's findings and recommendation in a comprehensive decision. The Court entered an order to show cause.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co