The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those with disabilities and should be used for no other purpose. These are not legal documents, and may not be used as legal authority. This transcript is not an official document of the Florida Supreme Court.
The Florida Bar v. Elizabeth Martinez-Genova
SC04-2365
PLEASE RISE. >> GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. PLEASE BE SEATED. >> OKAY. WE'RE READY ON THE NEXT CASE, THE THIRD CASE, THE FLORIDA BAR VERSUS ELIZABETH MARTINEZ-GENOVA. >> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS BARNABY MIN AND I REP SEN THE FLORIDA BAR. THREE-YEAR SUSPENSION INSTEAD FOR TWO REASONS: NUMBER ONE, A FINDING OF IN TEXTALING MISAPRORTION OF TRUST FUND. THERE IS PRESUMPTION. >> I KNOW USUALLY WE ARE KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THE FACS, BUT I WOULD LAKE TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY, THE TRUST FUND VIOLATION WERE TAKING OTHER CLIENT'S MONEY OR WAS BECAUSE THE ALLEGATION IS A PART OF THE SCAM THAT WAS BEING PERPETRATED BY OUR CLIENT. >> IT WAS BOTH, YOUR HONOR. >> WHAT HAPPENED IS, THIRD-PARTY RESPONSE WITH OPERATING COUNTS BUT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A TRUST. SHE WAS SUPPOSED TO HOLD AN TRUST AND APPLY TO FEES DURING THE ADDITIONAL LEN AKBRAEMENT. HOLDING THE FUN AND TRUST, RESPONDER WOULD IMMEDIATELY DISPERSE THOSE FUNDS BUT ALSO TO CLIENT AND ALSO TO OTHER PARTIES. THOSE FUNS TO REIMBURSE THEM SO IT TO BE SELFISH TAKING THE MONEY AS WELL AS PARTICIPATING IN THIS SCAM. >> THE AMOUNT INVOLVED? WHAT THE BAR ALLEGES WITH A SCHEME HERE. HELP US FLUSH OUT, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE CASES THAT WE ARE FAMILIAR. >> JUDGE, THE MAIN THING WAS HE STATED HIS HIS COMPANY TRANSFERRED $50,000 TO RESPOND APT FOR FOLDING TRUST FOR THE LEN APREMENT. AS SOON AS THEY RECEIVED THE $50,000. IT GOES TO THE BANK TO MAKE WIRE TRANSFERS TO TWO OTHER PARTIES THAT HAD THEIR FUNDS, MADE CASH WITHDRAWALS, SUBSTANTIAL CASH WITHDRAWALS AN $8,000 AND THEN RESPONDER WOULD USE REMAINING FUNDS BY GOING TO ATM WITHDRAWAL, WALGREEN'S, ECKERD, TAKING THE MANY WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE THIRD PAERD PARTY. THE THIRD PARTY SIGNED AN ACTUAL AGREEMENT, RECEIVED LETTERS SAYING THEY WERE TO BE HELD, WERE TO BE APPLIED TO THE FEES, THEY STATED THE FEES WITHIN A DAY OR TWO RESPONDED IMMEDIATELY. >> IS IT CORRECT, THIS BANK ACCOUNT WAS SET UP BY IN CONJUNCTION -- NO, YOUR HONOR. I BELIEVE THE FACS SHOWED THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS ALREADY, IT WAS AN OPERATING ACCOUNT THAT SHE HAD WELL BEFORE SHE KNEW HIM. >> OKAY. WHAT FUNDS DID IT HAVE IN IT AT HA POINT? >> IT IS VERY MINIMAL. THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT HIS FIRST AUDIT IN OCTOBER OF 2003 SHOWED THERE WAS MAYBE $18 OR SO AS THE STARTING BALANCE. RECEIVED $15,000 IMMEDIATELY DISBERSED THOSE FUNS TO RECEIVE ANOTHER $8,000 TO DISPERSE THOSE FUNDS RECEIVED ANOTHER $52,000. >> THE $15,000 OUT OF THIS KEEP IT -- ACCOUNT, WAS IT DESIGNATED, WAS IT A PERSONAL ACCOUNT? AN ESCROW ACCOUNT? HOW IS IT DESIGNATED? >> IT WAS AN OPERATING ACCOUNT. >> IT WAS OPERATING? >> CORRECT. >> DID SHE HAVE AN OFFICE? >> AN FIS. >> PHYSICAL OFFICE? >> MY UNDER STANDING IS THE HAD AN OFFICE THAT SHE WORKED OUT OF, SHE HAD LETERHEAD, IT SHOWS THE RESPONDENT SENT LETTERS TO COME PLAY AIN'T WITH THE ADDRESS ON IT CONFIRMING THE AGREEMENT THAT THE COMPLAINANT HAD. THE AGREEMENT SPECIFICALLY STATED THE FUNDS SHOULD BE HELD IN TRUST. >> GO AHEAD. I JUST WANT TO -- BECAUSE TO ME, WHAT THE BAR IS SAY, WHAT THIS ESTABLISHES IS TRUE, THIS IS FAR WORSE THAN VIOLATIONS WE HAD WHERE SOMEBODY HAD QUESTION OF TIMING AM THEY ARE TRYING TO LEVERAGE. THESE FUNDS WHICH YOU ARE SAYING, THEY HAVE NEVER GOING TO BE HEARD TO HAVE ANY PART OF THE FEE. THEY WERE ALL TO BE, THEY WERE PUT IN OPERATING ACCOUNT OR ESCROW ACCOUNT OR TRUST ACCOUNT, THEY WERE THERE TO BE HELD TO DO SOMETHING WITH ONCE THE LOAN WAS APPROVED. IS THAT THE CONDITION? >> CORRECT. >> CORRECT. >> YES. THE FEES TO BE HELD IN TRUST AN ACCREDITED TO THE CLOSING FEES. 24R WAS ALSO TESTIMONY THAT IF THE PERSON SEEKING THE LOAN HAD DEFAULTED THEN IT COULD BE FORFEITED IF HE HAD FORFEITED AND NOT OBTAIN THE FEES, REFUNDED BACK TO THE COME PLANT ANT OR THE CLIENT. >> AS WE LOOK AT THIS CASE, IT REALLY APPEARS THAT IT IS CLEAR THAT THE MONEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLACED IN TRUST AND MANAGED IN A DIFFERENT WAY. IT ALMOST APPEARS TO BE ADMISSION OF REMORSE FOR WHAT HAS OCCURRED. IT IS EGREGIOUS. I THINK REALLY THE ISSUE THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO STRUGGLE WITH TODAY IS GOING TO BE THE OVERLAY OF DRUG USE, DRUG CONSUMPTION, THOSE KIND OF THINGS, IT SEEMS, OR DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT? THIS IS WHAT IT SEEMS THIS CASE IS REALLY ABOUT. DOES THAT MITIGATE WHAT WOULD NORMALLY HAPPEN IF WITH HEA NOD DRUGS, THIS WOULD BE VERYK VERY CLEAR. I AGREE WITH YOU, YOUR HONOR. >> THE QUESTION REALLY BECOMES: HOW DO WE USE THAT IN MITIGATION? DO WE USE IT IN MITIGATION? DOES THAT TRANSFORM WHAT MAY BE SOME KIND OF SUSPENSION? THAT IS WHAT I THINK WE NEED TO HONE IN ON PLEASE. >> ABSOLUTELY THIS COURT HAS CONSIDERED MITIGATING FACTORS IN DETERMINING WHETHER THIS IT HAS BEEN OVERCOME. HOW THE MAJORITY OF CASES, THIS COURT HAS STATED, RESPONDENT SHOULD BE DISBARED FROM THE TRUST FUND. I TURN YOUR HONOR'S ATTENTION TO THE CASE. THAT ATTORNEY MISAPPROPRIATE TRUST FUND. THIS COURT FOUND THAT ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS, THE UNDERLYING REASONS WAS BECAUSE OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROBLEM. AFTER MITIGATING FACTORS IN ADDITION TO THE SUBSTANTIAL ABUSE, THE FACT NO PAYBACK HAD NO PRIOR DISCIPLINE. NEVERTHELESS, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS THE MAIN FACTOR IN THE FRUNS, THIS COURT FINING THAT RESPONDENT PARTICIPATED OR MISAPPROPRIATED TRUST FUNDS OVER A SUBSTANTIALLY PERIOD OF TIME AND STILL ABLE TO FUNCTION AS AN ATTORNEY. THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE ON THE PRESS EATEN CASE. THE ATTORNEY MISS MARTINEZ- GENOVADIS M APPROPRIATE FUND OVER SUBSTANTIAL PERIOD OF TIME AND FOUND THAT TO BE ONE OF THING A GRATEth VAING FACTORS THAT RESPONDENT THE FUND OVER I BELIEVE A YEAR PERIOD. TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OVER AN OVER AGAIN. ADDITIONALLY, EVEN THOUGH MISS MARTINEZ GENOVA DID HAVE A DRUG PROBLEM, SHE WAS ABLE TO FUNCTION AS AN ATTORNEY. THE RESPONDENT WAS ABLE TO HANDLE A NUMBER OF COMPLEX CASE, COME IN, TESTIFY DURING THE FINAL HEARING THE RESPONDENT WAS A CONFIDENT ATTORNEY WHO HANDLED JUDGMENT ISSUES WAS ABLE TO FIND LITIGATION CASES WHO WAS ABLE TO PAY HER BILLS AND RUN A LAW OFFICE AND WAS ABLE TO BE SUCCESSFUL ATTORNEY. >> WE HAVE BEEN SENDING THE MAYBE A WRONG MESSAGE THROUGH CASES SUCH AS MASON, THOSE TYPES OF CASES BECAUSE BOTH OF THOSE CASES, THERE WERE TRUST ACCOUNT VIOLATION, MAYBE NOT TO THE EX TEP HERE, BUT, I MEAN, THERE IS CERTAINLY A VIEW THAT TRUST ACCOUNTS AND THEFT FROM TRUST ACCOUNTS CANNOT BE TOLERATED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES AND THEN, THERE MAY BE ANOTHER VIEW THAT, WELL, MAYBE, MAYBE CERTAIN THINGS MAY MITIGATE SOMEWHAT, WHAT IS YOUR VIEW WITH REGARD TO OUR STATUS OF OUR LAW IN THIS AREA? >> THAT IS THE DOCUMENT, YOUR HONOR. THIS COURT IMPOSE SANCTIONS. IT DOES CONCEIVE THOSE CASES ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ABOUT FROM THE PRESS ACCEPT CASE. IT WAS UNINTENTIONAL VIOLATION, THAT WAS DUE TO ACCOUNTING ERRORS, NOW, THAT WAS ISOLATED UNITED STATES DENT IN WHICH IT SPENT A CONSIDERABLE A. TIME. THAT IS NOT WHAT WE HAVE IN THE CASE. IN THE CASE, IT IS NOT AN ACCOUNTING ERROR, IT IS A SCHEME THAT THE RESPONDENT ANT TERNED INTO IT. >> ADDITIONAL IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THERE HAD BEEN RESTITUTION. >> HERE THERE HAS BEEN NO RESTITUTION. >> CORRECT. THEY FOUND THAT TO BE AN AGGRAVATED FACTOR. THE RESPONDENT MADE NO ATTEMPTS. >> WHAT DOES THE RECORD TELL US ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM IN TERMS OF ANY CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OR OTHER -- DOES THE RECORD TELL US ANYTHING? >> THE RECORD IS SEE YOU LEN. WHAT DOES THE RECORD TELL US IN TERMS OF HIS INVOLVEMENT AND MANIPULATION OF THIS SITUATION? >> YOUR HONOR, THE RESPONDENT ARGUED TO SHE WAS SCAMMED JUST LUKE THE OTHER THIRD PARTIES. TESTIMONY IN THE CASE IS NOT CREDIBLE. RESPONDENT KNEW WHAT SHE WAS DOING, WILLFULLY IGNORED BY ACCEPTING THE THIRD PARTY FUNDS WHICH WERE SUPPOSED TO BE HELD AND RATHER THAN HOLD THUS, DISPERSE THOSE FUNDS AND DIN FACT ENGAGEG WITH THE QLIP. >> DID SHE SAY THAT IN HER DEFENCE, I MEAN, SHE WAS REFORCEFUL, DID SHE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THOSE FUNS WERE NEVER HEARD TO ACCEPT, IN OTHER WORDS, GAIN, IT IS AN ISSUE, WELL, YOU TOOK TRUST FUNDS. IT IS A QUESTION OF THE TIMING OF IT. IS IT HER POSITION THAT THESE WERE FEES THAT WERE DUE FOR THE TRANSACTION IN QUESTIONS? >> THEY ARGUED DURING THE FINAL HEARING WAS. THE FEES BELONG TO THE CLIENT. THERE IS EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD NUMBER 1 AND NUMBER 3. THEY WROTE LETTERS TO THE THIRD PARTY STANDING THE FUNDS WERE GOING TO BE HELD IN TRUST SO RESPONDENT BY SIGNING THE LETTER STATING THAT THE FUNDS WILL BE HELD IN TRUST PURSUE NT SA TO THE LOAN AGREEMENT KNEW THOSE WERE SUPPOSED SPO BE HELD IN TRUST AN IGNORED RESPONSIBILITY BY THE FUND. >> ADMITTED TO THE BAR IN 2,000. AS SOLO PRACTITIONER, ANYTHING IN THE RECORD AS TO HER AGE, WAS THIS A SECOND CAN I REAR? CAREER? WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE? I KNOW SHE HAD A SUN THAT -- SON THAT SHE LOST AS A RESULT -- NOT LOST IN TERMS OF DIED, BUT LOST CUSTODY OF AS A RESULT OF THE DRUG HAN ABOUT IT. >> THE RESPOND ENT DID TESTIFY CONCERNING HER PAST. SHE WENT TO LAW SCHOOL. SHE WORK AS LEGAL SECRETARY. SHE WORKED AS PARALEGAL FOR VARIOUS FIRMS AN TEMPORARY AGENCY, SHE DID HAVE A PROBLEM PASSING THE BAR EXAM THE FIRST TIME DUE TO A NUMBER OF PROBLEMS BUT DELAYED HER BEING ADMITTED UP UNTIL 2,000 WHEN SHE GRADUATED FROM LAW SCHOOL PRIOR TO THIS. SHE GRADUATED FROM LAW SCHOOL, SHE WORKED FOR HERSELF, SHE WORKED WITH HER HUSBAND. SHE WORKED FOR -- >> DID SHE HAVE A DRUG HABIT BEFORE SHE WENT TO LAW SCHOOL? WAS THERE TESTIMONY ABOUT LONG-TERM DRUGS ADDICTION? >> YES, YOUR HONOR. I BELIEVE THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THE RESPONDENT STARTED USING DRUGS AT THE AGE OF 18 THE TESTIMONY ALSO SHOWS DUE THE CHARACTER WITNESSES THAT SHE HAD SIG CAN DRUG ADDICTION FOR THE PAST TEN YEARS. >> THE REASON I AM ASKING THESE QUESTIONS, PRANKLY, THAT WE ARE ALWAYS STRUGGLING WITH THESE ISSUES OF HAVING TO PREVENT SOMETHING LIKE THIS FROM HAPPENING TO BEGIN WITH. DOES SHE KNOW SHE WAS ADMITTED TO THE BAR? SHE WAS NOT. RESPEND ENT TO THE ACTUAL HEARING WITH THE EXAMINERS WHERE SHE PRESENTED EVIDENCE TO THE EXAMINER SHE WAS FIT TO BECOME AL LAWYER AND SHE WAS ADMITTED. >> THE EXAM KNEW SHE HAD THIS DRUG PAST DRUG USE? >> NO. RESPONDENT MISREPRESENTED UNTHINK APPLICATION SHE HAD A PRIOR DRUG PROBLEM. RESPEND ENT SAID SHE DID NOT THINK SHE HAD A PROBLEM WHICH IS WHY SHE LIE ON THE BAR APPLI CAUTION, THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, SHE WAS ABDUCTED TO DRUGS ON THE BAR APPLICATION, SHE STATED, I AM NOTED A DICKED TO DRUG, I DON'T HAVE A DRUG PROBLEM. >> YOU ARE MOVING INTO REBUTTAL. YOU CAN PROCEED IF YOU WANT. YOU ARE DOWN INTO THE REBUTTAL TIME. >> YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE SHE HAS BEEN FOUND OF MISAPPROPRIATING TRUST TUND AND FOUND GUILTY OF COMMITTING CRIMINAL OFFENSE, THE PUNITIVE IS THE APPROPRIATE PENALTY AND ANY MITIGATING FACTORS DO NOT OVERCOME THAT PRESUMPTIVE PUNITIVE TIMOR THE AGGRAVATING FACTORS THAT HAVE BEEN FOUND. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> MISS WEAR. >> THANK YOU. MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, MANSY WEAR. I AM APPEARING PRO BONO, YOUR HONOR. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO SAY, AN I HAD NOTIFIED THE BAR AS WELL. MISS GEN NOVEMBER VAE GENOVA CONTINUES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM FULLY ATTENDS 6 MIGHTING AS WEEK, 3 AA, THREE NA, SHE HAD VISITATION TO HER SON RESTORED TO HER. SHE HAS HIM OVERNIGHT, OVER OTHER WEEKEND. SHE WOIS WORKING AS VOL LUP TIER, AND SHE IS WORKING FOR A LAW FIRM IN A PARALEGAL CAPACITY. I ALSO WANTED TO NOTE THAT AFTER THE BAR FILED AN AMENED AFFIDAVIT ASKING FOR AN ADDITIONAL $3,000 BEYOND WHAT HAS BEEN ORDERED BY THE REFEREE AS I READ THE RULE AND THERE SEEMS TO BE NO CASES, 7.6, THAT ADDITIONAL AMOUNT WOULD BE -- >> WELL, COSTS ARE SORT OF THE LEAST OF YOUR CLIENT'S PROBLEMS HERE. I UNDERSTAND. VIEW A VERY LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU COULD USE YOUR TIME TRYING TO DEMONSTRATE TO THIS COURT WHY WE SHOULD NOT DISBAR YOUR CLIENT ON THE FACE OF THESE SERIOUS CHARGES? >> FIRST OF A UL, YOUR HONOR, AND I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EVEN HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME HERE AN ADDRESS YOU. THE REFEREE HEARD ALL OF THE WITNESSES AND SAW ALL OF THE EVIDENCE AND THOUGHT ABOUT THIS VERY CAREFULLY AND SHE FOUND OF COURSE THE AGGRAVATEORS THAT SHE DID FIND. SHE FOUND 9 MIT GITORS. IT APPEARS PROBABLY THAT MR. GENOVA WAS SO DEEPLY INTO DEPRESSION AND DRUGS THAT WHEN HE MET HER, HE RECOGNIZED HER AS POTENTIAL LOSS FOR HIS TEAM. I UNDERSTAND THE BAR IS THAT SHE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SOME KIND OF CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK. >> HOW ABOUT THE REFEREE? DID THE REFEREE FIND YOUR CLIENT WAS JUST ANOTHER VICTIM? >> I THINK THAT THE -- I THINK THAT THE MITIGATEORS ALSO THE DISCUSSION THE REFEREE'S REPORT INDICATES SHE WAS AWARE OF THAT. I THINK SHE -- I THINK THAT SHE MADE THE FACT SHE DID. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A REVERSAL ON THOSE. >> HERE, LET ME STATE MY CONCERN. THIS HAPPENED IN 2004 AND THIS WAS NOT AN UNINTENTIONAL ACT ON THE PART OF YOUR CLIENT, IN FACT, THE EXHIBIT IN THE RECORD DEMONSTRATES ON FEBRUARY 19th, 2004, SHE SIGNED A LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO MR. HIM PLEASE BE ADVISED THE RECEIPT IN THE AMOUNT OF $52,000, GROURNDS WILL BE APPLIED TO A PAYMENT TO A LOAN COMMITMENT FEE. THE BANK RECORDS INDICATE THAT ON FEBRUARY 23rd, 4 DAYS LATER, SHE WITHDRAW $8,000. >> GAVE IT TO HIM. >> OF THAT MONEY THAT WAS PAYABLE TO HER, TO ELIZABETH GENOVA. AND SO THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE HERE IS THAT WITH LAWYERS REP ACCEPT TRUST REPRESENT TRUST TO THE PUBLIC THAT WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY, ALL THE LAWYERS IN THIS STATE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO SAY THAT IF YOU DO THAT KIND OF ACT, YOU CAN'T BE A LAWYER ANYMORE. >> YOUR CONCERNS, OF COURSE, ARE ALL OUR CONCERNS. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT SHE, SHE REPEATEDLY TOLD MICHAEL, SHE DID NOT HAVE A TRUST ACCOUNT. SHE WAS NOT HOLDING FUNDS IN TRUST. SHE REPEATEDLY ASKED FOR REASSURENESS AS WHICH SHE GOT FROM THEM? SHE DIDN'T HAVE RESPONSIBILITY TO HIM. SHE HAD RESPONSIBILITY TO TELL THIS PERSON SHE REP ACCEPTED TO THE FACT TO GET THE $52,000 SENT TO HER. >> OKAY. THE COURT IS CLEAR, THAT -- THE COURT IS CLEAR ON THAT. YOUR POSITION IS THAT AS A THIRD PARTY, SHE HAD THAT RESPONSIBILITY -- >> WHEN SHE REPRESENTED TO HIM -- >> RIGHT. >> THAT IS WHAT THAT MONEY WAS GOING TO BE USED FOR. THERE CAN'T BE ANY QUESTION. THAT IS WHAT IT HAD TO BE USED FOR. BUT ON THE MATTER OF THE REFEREE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE AN ABUNDANCE OF CASE LAWS. WE HAVE A LOOP WHICH SAYS THAT TAKE MONEY OUT OF TRUST WHETHER IT BE DETONATED A TRUST ACCOUNT, AN OPERATING ACCOUNT OR ANY KIND OF AN ACCOUNT, IF THE LAWYER TAKES IT OUT THE PRESUMED DISCIPLINE IS DISBARMENT. THE REFEREE DIDN'T DEAL WITH THAT. DIDN'T SHOW HOW IT WAS THIS PRESUMPTION. >> I THINK SHE FOLLOWED THE RELATIVELY RECENT CASE OF BEHRMAN WHICH IS LIKE THIS CASE SIMILAR A SCHEME, SIMILARLY SOMEBODY WAS TAKEN I BY A PERSON WHO WAS CLOSER TO HIM AND THE PEOPLE WHO WERE, WHO WERE DISAN ADVANTAGEED WITH THIRD PARTY, ALL OF THAT IS THE SAME. AT, WITH MUCH MORE MONEY. >> WELL MR. BEHRMAN, I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION ON THAT, MR. BEHRMAN WAS 7 YEARS OLD, IT WAS AN ISOLATED INCIDENT INVOLVING MR. BEHRMAN. IT WAS NOT -- THE FACTS OF MR. BEHRMAN'S SITUATION WERE DIFFERENT. SINCE HIM, WE HAVE HAD SERIES OF CASES WHICH WE HAVE MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT TALKING FROM A TRUST ACCOUNT IS PRESUMED TO BE A DISBARMENT. >> THAT IS CORRECT, YOUR HONOR. >> THEN THERE IS ALSO MASON WHO IS ADVERTISING, PETITIONING FOR REIN STAMENT. SHE PURPOSELY WROTE MACHINE MANY CHECKS TO HERSELF AN USED THEM TO PAY BILLS. SHE WAS INVOLVED IN THE REMOVAL OF QUITE A LOT OF MONEY SHE WAS SUSPENDED FOR TWO YEARS. THE MORE RECENT CASE WHICH I SUPPLEMENTED WITH WHERE WE DIDN'T EVEN, WE DIN EVEN HOPE FOR A REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF SUSPENSION, BUT HIS WAS REDUCED FROM 3 YEARS TO A 2-YEAR SUSPENSION. THE FACT IN THAT CASE APPEARS, AT LEAST THE READER, I HAVEN'T SOON THE BRIEF, IT SEEMS TO ME FAR MORE EGREEMINGOUS AS THESE ARE. AS WELL, YOU KNOW, -- >> DIDN'T WE SAY IN THAT CASE THAT THAT WAS NEGLIGENT CONDUCT AS OPPOSED TO INTENTIONAL CONDUCT? THAT IS TRUE, CORRECT? YES. ABSOLUTELY. THE COURT DID SAY THAT. >> HOW CAN YOU EVEN COMPARE THAT TO THE FACT THAT -- WHAT DID YOUR CLIENT THINK SHE WAS DOING? WHEN SHE WAS TAKING MONEY FROM ONE PERSON AND THEN DOLLING IT OUT TO HERSELF AND OTHERS? >> SHE WAS ASSUREDED RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY, SHE WAS ASSURED, SHE BELIEVED THAT, THAT HIS ASSURANCES THAT THIS WAS, THIS WAS THE APPROPRIATE THING TO DO. THIS WOMAN DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A CHECKING ACCOUNT? THAT IS WHY SHE WE TO THE BANK AND TOOK OUT THE CASH. SHE HAD NOTHING TO WRITE CHECKS ON. >> THESE TRANSFERS WERE MADE TO AN AN ACCOUNT? >> EXACTLY. THEY HAD TO EITHER GET A BANK CHECK OR GET OUT THE CASH. THERE IS, BY THE WAY, NO DISPUTE THAT WAS A 3% WHICH IS $1800 OUT OF THE THANK TRANCE ACTION. SHE WAS NOT -- >> BUT IF YOUR CLAYIENT GETS A LETTER OR SOME INDICATION THAT THE PERSON WHO SENDS THE MONEY BELIEVES THAT IT IS GOING TO BE HELD IN TRUST UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE LOAN IS EITHER GIVEN OR NOT GIVEN AND THEN ON THE SAME DAY GO TO THE BANK AND GIVES MONEY TO A THIRD PARTY, HOW IN THE WORLD CAN THAT NOT BE INTENTIONALLY CONDUCT? UNDERSTANDING THAT SHE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE HOLDING THE MONEY FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE. >> BECAUSE SHE NEVER SAW THE CONTRACT. SHE ONLY KNEW WHAT HE WAS TELLING HER AND AS, SHE WAS DEEPLY MOO THESE OTHER THINGS. I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, IF ANY OF US WOULD HAVE KNOWN, LISTEN, CLOSE. >> HOW DID SHE -- SHE MAINTAINED A PUBLIC OFFICE? >> AIM MOT SURE SHE HAD A PHYSICAL OFFICE. SHE HAD A DESK SOMEWHERE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ARRANGEMENT WAS. >> WHAT WAS HER HUSBAND FEDERALLY PROSECUTED FOR AT THE TIME HE WAS ARRESTED ON DUI? >> HE WAS BANKRUPTCY COURT. HE WENT TO PRISON FOR THAT. HE IS OUT OF PRISON. HE HAS DONE WHAT HE NEEDED TO DO TO MAKE RESTITUTION AN SO FORTH. THEY WERE NOT WORKING TOGETHER. DRUG RELATED AT ALL HIS ACTIVITIES? >> OH, YES, OH, YES. HE, YES. >> SO SHY AN HUSBAND WERE DEEPLY INVOLVED IN DRUGS? >> ON THE USE OF THEM NOT THE SALE OF THEM. BY THE WAY, ALLEGATIONS SHE WAS USING THIS MONEY TO BUY DRUGS, NO, PEOPLE WOULD GIVE THEM TO HER AND THEY WOULD SHARE THEM, YOU KNOW? IT IS AWFUL. IT IS AWFUL IN HUMAN TERMS NOT AWFUL IN THE TERMS OF PEOPLE SITTING DOWN AND TRYING TO STEAL FROM PEOPLE. >> I GUESS MY CONCERN IS, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT A 22, 23, 25-YEAR-OLD. HE WITH TALKING ABOUT A 41-YEAR-OLD LAWDIE WHO HAS HAD A LONG HISTORY OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE. WE HAVE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC AND HOW CAN WE BE ASSURED THAT CAN BE DONE IN A CASE LIKE THIS? >> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THOUGHT ABOUT WHEN I BRIEFED THIS CASE WAS: THE RECORD WITH RESPECT TO DRUG AND ALCOHOL ABUSE IS WHAT IT IS. IT IS CONSIDERED BY THE REFEREE, BUT IT IS FROM. I AM PUZZLED BY HOW SHE PASSED, SHE PASSED THROUGH THE BAR EXAM IN THE SPREEINGDS TO BE ADMITTED TO THE BAR, I DIDN'T KNOW HER THEN. I DIDN'T THE. IT WAS LONGSTANDING ENOUGH SO IT SHOULD HAVE RAISED SOME CONCERN. I DON'T BELIEVE FOR A MOMENT SHE MISREP ACCEPTED HERSELF ON THE APPLICATION. I DON'T THINK SHE WAS AWARE OF IT. I THINK IT WAS BY DEPRESSION WHICH WAS VERY REAL AND -- >> DO WE HAVE THAT KIND OF INFORMATION IN THE RECORD? >> WITH RESPECT TO WHAT SHE USED THE MANY FOR? >> NO, WITH HER RESPECT TO BEINGING DEPRESSED THAT MASKED HER, I MEAN, IS THIS YOUR TAKE ON THIS OR IS THAT EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD? >> IT WAS IN THE RECORD. SHE HAD BEEN IN 1992. THEY HAVE THE YEAR WRONG. IT US IN THE RECORD. I AM THINKING THAT IT MAY BE THAT IT MASKED, THAT IT MASKED SOME OF THAT, AS WELL, SHE WAS LIVING WITH HER HUSBAND WHO WAS HIMSELF USING AND LIVING A VERY FAST LIFESTYLE AT THE TIME. YOU ARE GIVING A VERY SYMPATHETIC VIEW, YOU ARE DOING THIS PRO BONO. I AM THE ONE WHO THINKS PEOPLE SHOULD GET SECOND OR THIRD CHANCES ESPECIALLY WITH DRUG ADDICTIONS, NOT OM DO I HAVE NO SIM PAT THINK. MY CONCERN IS THAT WE F WE DON'T DISBAR THIS INDIVIDUAL, WE ARE SENDING OUT A SIGNAL THAT SOMEHOW THIS IS GOING TO BE TOLERATED AND I DON'T AGREE. MASON FIRST OF ALLS WITH A CLOSE VOTE BUT THE FINDING WAS THAT THERE WERE ACCOUNTING ERRORS. THIS PERSON, YOUR QLIN, NOT ONLY DID THIS AND WAS SUPPORTING A DRUG HABIT, BUT IN HER DEFENSE, APPARENTLY, SHE SAID, WELL, SHE WAS ABLE TO DO ALL OF THE THINGS, SHE HANDLED A MATER THAT REQUIRED HER, THIS IS NOT LIKE SOMEBODY, SOME BAG LADY THAT WAS GOING FROM DAY TO DAY. >> JUDGE, I LOOKED THAT CASE. TO THEENTIAL DENL I COULD FINE OUT WHAT WENT ON IN THE UNDERLYING CASE, I WAS NOT AT THE TRIAL. I WOULD HAVE, YOU KNOW, SHE DID A COUPLE OF NICE THINGS, PEOPLE CAME IN AND SAID SOME NICE THINGS ABOUT HER. I WOULD NOT INTERPRET THAT HAS BEING ABLE TO HANDLE ANY KIND OF CONFLICT MATTER. >> IS IT TRUE SHE WAS DURING 2002-2004 ARRESTED THREE TIMES, TWICE FOR POSSESSION OF COCAINE, ONE FOR SALE? YES, JUDGE. >> ONE WAS DISMISSED. THE OTHER TWO HAVE BEEN NO ACTION. SHE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED THE DRUG. YOUR HONOR, YOU ARE CORE REB ABOUT THAT. SHE GOT ANOTHER CHANCE IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM? YES, YOUR HONOR. >> ANY OTHER CHANCE OTHER THAN TO HAVE TO BE DISBARRED IN THE CASE? WELL, WITH THE ONE THING, YOUR HONOR, THE COURT EVEN THOUGH I UNDERSTAND YOUR REVIEW IS WIDER ON THE DISCIPLINARY PART, THE REFEREE'S RECOMMENDATION AFTER FOUR DAYS OF TRIAL WOULD BE GIVEN, WOULD BE GIVEN SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE TO YOU. THIS WASS ONLY A WELL THOUGHT-OUT REFEREE'S REPORT GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION AND CERTAINLY NOT DISREGARDING THE IMPORTANCE OF PROTEBING THE PUBLIC WHICH IS PART OF THE COURT APPOINT. THE OTHER THING I THINK IS THAT THIS, THAT WITH A 3 YEAR PROBATION ORDERED FOLLOWED BY A 3-YEAR SUSPENSION POLOED BY PROBATION, WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT SHE WOULD FIT THE CRITERIA TO BE, TO BE ALLOWED TO PRACTICE ONCE AGAIN, BUT THAT PROCESS IS RIGOROUS ENOUGH, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONCEIVE THAT SHE WOULD BE ADMITTED BACK TO PRACTICE UNLESS EVERYONE WHO NEEDED TO BE CONVINCED AND THERE WERE A LOT OF FOLKS, PERFECTLY CONVINCED THAT NOT ONLY WAS SHE CAPABLE AP SO FORTH AND SO ON, SHE ABSOLUTELY WAS FULLY, FULLY REHABILITATED. I THINK DISBARING HER, SHE IS A RELATIVELY YOUNG WOMAN, DISBARING HER ALTOGETHER TELLING HER YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO BE READMITTED AGAIN, I THINK, ON THE CIRCUMSTANCE, WHEN SHE ABSOLUTELY WAS A VICTIM OF A STILL PRACTICE AND SKILLED CONMAN WHO PLUCKED HER AS A LAWYER KNOWING OF THE DRUG AND ALCOHOL INVOLVEMENT, SO HE WAS AWARE OF THAT. YOU KNOW? WOULD I HAVE DEALT WITH IT IN THE SAME WAY? WOULD I HAVE PRESENED THE EVIDENCE IN A DIFFERENT WAY? >> POSSIBLY, BUT I THINK THAT, I THINK THE REFEREE UNQUESTIONABLY HAD ALL OF THE CONCERN, ALL OF THE POLICY CONCERNS WHICH MUST CONCERN YOU FULLY, FULLY IN LINE, AND I THINK THAT SHE WAS VERY CAREFUL IN MAKING THE, THOSE REPRESENTATION AND SINCE THEY WERE WELL REASON THE COURT'S JURIES PRU DISWITHIN THE RULES FOR THE DISCIPLINE, WE WOULD HAVE THAT YOU AFFIRM THOSE RULINGS IN EVERY RESPECT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> YOU HAVE EXHAUSTED YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU. >> REBUTTAL. MR. MIN. >> THANK YOU VERY BRIEF REBUTTAL. THE THREE CASES OF THE RESPONDENT ARGUED TO YOU HONOR. AS YOUR HONORS POINTED OUT QUITE DISTINGUISHABLE. IN THOSE CASES, THEY DEALT WITH ATTORNEYS WHO NEGLIGENTLY MISAPPROPRIATED FUNDS IN THE CASE, THERE WAS INTENTIONAL MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRUST FUN. >> WHILE YOU ARE ON THAT SPECIFIC THING, REALIZING YOUR LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME. HAS THE BAR TABULATED THE EXACT A. FUNDS THAT WERE MISAPPROPRIATED AND ACTUALLY IN EFFECT STOLEN FROM THIS CLIENT? JUDGE, I BELIEVE THOSE FACTS WERE ACTUALLY STIPULATED TO. SPECIFICALLY ON PAGE 4 OF THE REPORT, THE RESPONDENT RECEIVED $15,000 FROM ONE CLIENT, ONE-THIRD PARTY, HOWEVER, THE MUCH SHE DID REIMBURSE THAT PARTY. RECEIVED $60,000, THOSE FUNS HAVE BEEN TOTALLY MISAPPROPRIATED. HE AGREED TO REFUND THOSE FUNDS $45,000 OF THOSE FUNDS TO THE CLIENT TO THE THIRD PARTY. >> WITH DO WE KNOW WHETHER HE GOT THESE FUNDS OR WHETHER THE RESPOND ENT GOT THINK FUNDS OR DO WE KNOW THAT? >> YES, SIR. IT IS ON PAGE 4 AND 5. THE REPORT OF THE $8,000 THE RESPONDENT HE NRBLY RECEIVED $7,700 OF THAT WAS CASH WITHDRAWALS, THE OTHER REMAINING AMOUNT WAS BY THE RESPOND ENT. THE REMAINING $52,000 RECEIVED BY THE THIRD PARTIES, HE WAS REIMBURSED WITH $15,000. HE RECEIVED $13,000 IN CASH WITHDRAWALS. IS THERE SORT OF A BOTTOM LINE. THIS A. MONEY, SHE M APROED FOR HER OWN PERSONAL USE. THIS MANY PEOPLE SHE TOOK IT FROM? >> UNFORTUNATELY UNCLEAR AS FAR AS WHAT THE BOTTOM LINE IS. THE RESPONDENT UNCLEAR AS FAR AS YOU HOW MUCH MONEY SHE WITHDRAW. THERE WERE NO RECEIPTS, THERE IS NOTHING OF NA NATURE. >> MR. MIN, YOU HAVE UTILIZED OUR TIME. MISS WEAR, DIFFICULT CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WERE CREATED, BUT YOUR EFFORTS AND PRO BONO WAY ARE APPRECIATED BY THE COURT BECAUSE ALL, ALL WHO HAVE INTERESTS HERE NEED TO BE REP SEND AND WE THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT ON PRO BONO BASIS. MR. MIN, THANK YOU AS WELL. >>