In the case of In the Matter of Marcea O’BRIEN-CARRIMAN, 702 S.E.2d 635 (Georgia 2010), the Georgia Supreme court disbarred attorney Marcea O’BRIEN-CARRIMAN for violating Rule 5.3; responsibilities regarding non-lawyer assistants, Rule 5.4; professional independence of a lawyer, and Rule 8.1; bar admission and disciplinary matters. Marcea O’BRIEN-CARRIMAN decided to open her own legal practice where she was involved in a business relationship with a non-lawyer and agreed to pay the non-lawyer a percentage of what she made from the cases. The relationship was ended a year later when Marcea became worried that what they were doing could be considered unauthorized practice of law, when an investigation was made of the the non-lawyer's activities. Under oath, Marcea made submissions about the fee splitting in which she lied twice about before finally admitting to the Office of General Counsel that she agreed to split the fees with the non-lawyer.This case teaches the importance of a lawyer’s duty under Rules 5.4 (a)”an agreement by a lawyer with the lawyer’s firm, partner, or associate may provide for the payment of money”. Rule 8.1 (a) “shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact”. And Rule 5.3 (b) “a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the non-lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer”.
Find the case at: http://www.gasupreme.us/sc-op/pdf/s09y2049.pdf
Showing posts with label Disbarment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Disbarment. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Monday, March 14, 2011
Florida: Lawyer Disbarred for Professional Misconduct Including Multiple Drug-Related Charges-Summarized by Student Brittany McGree
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2010/sc08-1375.pdf
On November 04, 2010 the Florida Supreme Court disbarred lawyer Philip David Irish due to professional misconduct charges brought against him by The Florida Bar. Professional misconduct was found due to Irish’s disregard and neglecting of his client’s cases, six drug-related felony charges, and collection of fees without providing the services needed to the clients. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the referee’s conclusions that the lawyer was found guilty of professional misconduct by violation of the Florida Bar 3-4.2, 3-4.3, 4-1.1, 4-1.3, 4-1.4(a), 4-1.4(b), 4-1.5(a)(1), 4-3.2, 4-8.1(b), 4-8.4(b), (c), (g). Philip David Irish filed a motion for rehearing to the Supreme Court of Florida arguing that his misconduct was directly related to drug addiction which he had recovered from and that his case was similar to other cases such as Florida Bar v. Rosen, 495 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1986) and Florida Bar v. Hochman, 815 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 2002). Irish was disbarred by the Supreme Court due to lacking of proof that he was a recovered addict and the cases in which the attempt was made to show precedents were lacking similarities. Irish was seeking help from a psychiatrist and addiction therapist but the proof of rehabilitation was lacking in that the conversations that took place between Irish and the psychiatrist were totaling of three hours of phone conversation and one brief face-to-face meeting. There was also no medical documentation of proof that he did have a clean system. The cases that were used as precedent did not relate to the case at hand due to the fact in both situations the attorneys sought help themselves before endangering any of their clients.
On November 04, 2010 the Florida Supreme Court disbarred lawyer Philip David Irish due to professional misconduct charges brought against him by The Florida Bar. Professional misconduct was found due to Irish’s disregard and neglecting of his client’s cases, six drug-related felony charges, and collection of fees without providing the services needed to the clients. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the referee’s conclusions that the lawyer was found guilty of professional misconduct by violation of the Florida Bar 3-4.2, 3-4.3, 4-1.1, 4-1.3, 4-1.4(a), 4-1.4(b), 4-1.5(a)(1), 4-3.2, 4-8.1(b), 4-8.4(b), (c), (g). Philip David Irish filed a motion for rehearing to the Supreme Court of Florida arguing that his misconduct was directly related to drug addiction which he had recovered from and that his case was similar to other cases such as Florida Bar v. Rosen, 495 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1986) and Florida Bar v. Hochman, 815 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 2002). Irish was disbarred by the Supreme Court due to lacking of proof that he was a recovered addict and the cases in which the attempt was made to show precedents were lacking similarities. Irish was seeking help from a psychiatrist and addiction therapist but the proof of rehabilitation was lacking in that the conversations that took place between Irish and the psychiatrist were totaling of three hours of phone conversation and one brief face-to-face meeting. There was also no medical documentation of proof that he did have a clean system. The cases that were used as precedent did not relate to the case at hand due to the fact in both situations the attorneys sought help themselves before endangering any of their clients.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Lawyer disbarred after failing to pay back client
Link for opinion: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20100608.htm
In Joan Myers v. Commission for lawyer discipline, the lawyer Joan Myers was disbarred and ordered to pay attorneys fees and direct expenses in the amount of $7,616.06, after she broke TDRPC 1.03(a), 1.14(a), and 1.14(b) in the Texas TDRPC.
Myers knowingly put a clients fund into her own bank account and did not leave it in a separate trust or escrow account. She also did not maintain any records of the money that she acquired from her client. Along with failure to hold the funds in a separate account she also neglected to notify the client when she received funds in which a client has an interest, failure to promptly deliver funds, and failure to render fill accounting upon request. Myers also failed to keep her client reasonably informed and failed to respond to requests for information.
This case teaches us the importance of updating our clients promptly and efficiently. We need to make sure that our clients have as much information on what is going on in their case as they need to. We also need to know the importance of keeping separate accounts when they are going to generate interests for the clients and to keep records of everything that has to do with the case. Making sure that a client is informed is quite possibly the most important thing within our legal system. Within the Texas rule 1.03(a), it states a “failure to keep a client reasonably informed and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.” You have to keep your client up to speed on everything. With the other two Texas rules 1.14(a) and (b) you must keep your clients money in a separate account and maintain the records of that account.
In Joan Myers v. Commission for lawyer discipline, the lawyer Joan Myers was disbarred and ordered to pay attorneys fees and direct expenses in the amount of $7,616.06, after she broke TDRPC 1.03(a), 1.14(a), and 1.14(b) in the Texas TDRPC.
Myers knowingly put a clients fund into her own bank account and did not leave it in a separate trust or escrow account. She also did not maintain any records of the money that she acquired from her client. Along with failure to hold the funds in a separate account she also neglected to notify the client when she received funds in which a client has an interest, failure to promptly deliver funds, and failure to render fill accounting upon request. Myers also failed to keep her client reasonably informed and failed to respond to requests for information.
This case teaches us the importance of updating our clients promptly and efficiently. We need to make sure that our clients have as much information on what is going on in their case as they need to. We also need to know the importance of keeping separate accounts when they are going to generate interests for the clients and to keep records of everything that has to do with the case. Making sure that a client is informed is quite possibly the most important thing within our legal system. Within the Texas rule 1.03(a), it states a “failure to keep a client reasonably informed and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.” You have to keep your client up to speed on everything. With the other two Texas rules 1.14(a) and (b) you must keep your clients money in a separate account and maintain the records of that account.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)