In re Dickey Respondent’s websites exaggerated his experience, and his internet profiles - created in reliance on company representatives who were lawyers and non-attorney web designers who assured respondent that the advertisements would comply with his ethical obligations - exaggerated his experience, used a form of the word “specialist” although respondent is not certified as a specialist, included statements likely to create unjustified expectations about the results he could achieve, and included descriptions and characterizations of the quality of respondent’s services.Read More »
In re Toney Twenty-three complaints were lodged against respondent, involving repeated violations of the same rules, and respondent stipulated to the facts alleged in the formal charges against him. In light of this record, we reject the recommendation of the Commission on Lawyer Conduct panel that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three months.Read More »
In re Hursey Due to respondent’s failure to answer the formal charges against him, he is deemed to have admitted the factual allegations in 13 disciplinary matters. Further, respondent has abandoned his law practice without regard to the status of his law license. Respondent has never communicated with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and he did not appear before this court. We disbar respondent.Read More »
In re McClain After a massive heart attack and while suffering from depression, respondent failed to supervise his wife/bookkeeper’s handling of his trust account. She embezzled over $75,000 of client funds to keep their household running; she hid her misdeeds from respondent because of his heart problems.Read More »
In re Liotti A New York lawyer with 33 years’ experience and an “AV rating,” who acted as court-appointed counsel in successfully appealing his client’s sentence for wire fraud and identity theft, has received a public admonition from the 4th Circuit for multiple misrepresentations in his representation of his client on appeal, including an assertion that the trial judge suppressed a letter from an informant.
Tagged with: AttorneysRead More »
Attorneys – Discipline – Disbarment – Inadequate Representation – Violations of State Law & Court Orders
In re Davis Where respondent violated state law and the orders of this court, and where he failed to adequately represent clients, sufficiently respect the rights of third parties, or satisfy adverse monetary judgments, respondent is not fit to practice law.Read More »
In re Hammer Even though the state ultimately found that none of respondent’s ex-wife’s complaints about respondent rose to the level of criminal conduct, respondent admits he could have used better judgment in dealing with his ex-wife and former sister-in-law during and after the break-up of his marriage. While respondent was on an interim suspension from the practice of law, and while he was proceeding pro se in litigation, during a five-hour deposition of a former neighbor, respondent asked improper questions, talked over the deponent at times, and did not let the witness finish his answer in some instances.Read More »
Attorneys – Discipline – Misrepresentation – Fabricated Medical Record – Unearned Fee – Failure to Return – Failure to Communicate
In re Dickey Where the respondent-attorney created a document that appeared to be a medical record and included it in a settlement package without indicating that it was not, in fact, a medical record, and where respondent failed to return an unearned fee to a different client and failed to communicate with a third client that his failure to proffer an expert witness had resulted in the dismissal of her medical malpractice claim, we suspend respondent from the practice of law in this state for two years. The two-year suspension shall run retroactively to the date of respondent’s interim suspension. Respondent shall pay the $8,073.99 costs of these proceedings and shall pay the $1,750 fee dispute award to his former client.Read More »
In re Walters Even though this court had previously suspended respondent for some of the conduct at issue in his North Carolina disbarment, the N.C. State Bar also considered more than 20 real estate transactions in which respondent knowingly made false statements on HUD-1 Settlement Statements for the purpose of influencing the action of the lending institution whose accounts were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014. On several occasions, respondent also disbursed funds from the lending institution in a manner inconsistent with the disbursement listed on the HUD-1 Settlement Statements provided to the institution. None of these instances of misconduct were considered by this court when it suspended respondent.
Tagged with: AttorneysRead More »