Summary
The Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board considered an attorney’s intentional commingling and conversion of title insurance premiums from three real estate transactions. The Board found violations of Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.15(a), 1.15(b), and 8.4(c), and recommended a three-month suspension. On March 11, 2002, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted the recommendation and ordered the respondent suspended for three months and liable for disciplinary costs.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether respondent violated Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.15(a), 1.15(b), and 8.4(c) by commingling and intentionally converting title insurance premiums and related third-party funds.
- What discipline was appropriate in light of respondent's intentional misappropriation, restitution, cooperation, lack of prior discipline, character evidence, financial difficulties, and other mitigating circumstances.
Holdings
- Respondent violated Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.15(a), 1.15(b), and 8.4(c) by failing to promptly disburse and remit title insurance premiums, commingling client and third-party funds with personal funds, and intentionally converting those funds for his own use.
- A three-month suspension from the practice of law was appropriate for respondent's intentional and dishonest misappropriation of title insurance premiums, considering both the seriousness of the misconduct and the mitigating circumstances.
Key quotations
“While these circumstances might well explain respondent’s need for money, they do not in any way justify or excuse his misappropriation of client and third-party funds.” (137)
“An attorney’s personal financial difficulties in no way mitigates the seriousness of his misconduct involving client funds.” (137)
Factual background
Respondent, a Pennsylvania lawyer who primarily practiced real estate law, acted as an approved attorney and settlement agent for an insurance company in three residential real estate transactions during 1995 and 1996. He commingled settlement funds with personal and general business funds and intentionally failed to remit title insurance premiums and related amounts, converting approximately $1,350 owed to the insurance company for his own use. The transactions were otherwise properly completed, the clients did not complain, and respondent later satisfied a judgment arising from the conduct.
Procedural history
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a petition on December 14, 2000, charging respondent with violations of Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.15(a), 1.15(b), and 8.4(c). Respondent admitted the allegations, and a hearing committee recommended a three-month suspension. After review by the Disciplinary Board, which made the same recommendation, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ordered a three-month suspension and assessed costs.