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. Joseph Francis Keeley III
SC04-48
.
THE NEXT CASE WE'LL HEAR THIS
MORNING, IS THE FLORIDA BAR
VERSUS JOSEPH FRANCIS KEELEY.,,
>> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, FOR
THE RECORD, MY NAME IS EUGENE
GARRETT, I REPRESENT THE RESPOND99!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RESPONDENT, JOSEPH FRANCIS
KEELEY III.
I RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT WHAT
HAPPENED IN THIS CASE DOES NOT
WARRANT DISBARMENT.
A LESS SEVERE PENALTY FOR THE
RECORD KEEPING SHORT COMING
WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AND FULFILL
ALL THE REHABILITATING AND
OTHERWISE COMPETENT AND RULE
ABIDING ATTORNEY.
>> MR. GARRETT, THERE SEEMS TO
BE A PRESUMPTION IN FAVOR OF
DISBARMENT FOR TRUST ACCOUNT
VIOLATIONS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY
ARE INTENTIONAL.
VIOLATIONS AND NOT THE RESULT OF
IMPROPER ACCOUNTING OR
BOOKKEEPING.
SO WHY SHOULDN'T THAT
PRESUMPTION APPLY TO YOUR
CLIENT?
>> WELL, BECAUSE GIVEN AN
OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE
ARGUMENT, I'LL SAY THAT WHAT
HAPPENED IN THIS CASE, WAS NOT
ANYTHING THAT AMOUNTED TO
DISBARMENT IN THIS MATTER,
CONCERNING ANY OF THE TRUST
FUNDS.
IF I MAY CONTINUE.
WHAT HAPPENS IS MR. KEELEY HAS
OPERATED A VERY HIGHLY HACK AT
THIS REAL ESTATE BUSINESS IN
BOAK RA TONE, FLORIDA, FOR OVER
40 YEARS.
>> LET'S GET BACK TO JUSTICE
CANTERO'S QUESTION AN MAYBE WE
CAN GET TO IT FROM A DIFFERENT
ANGLE HE.
THE QUESTION IS, WE HAVE A
PRESUMPTION OF DISBARMENT AND
USUALLY WE LOOK HAT ITEMS OF
UPON MITIGATION, TO MITIGATION
THAT -- TO MITIGATE THAT
PRESUMPTION OF DISBARMENT.
OFTEN WE HAVE CASES WHERE PEOPLE
ARE SUBSTANCE ABUSE, VARIOUS
ITEMS.
WHAT IN THIS CASE -- THERE WAS
NO MITIGATION FOUND IN THIS
CASE.
WHAT IS THERE THAT WOULD
MITIGATE AGAINST PUTTING --
DISBARRING THIS ATTORNEY?
>> WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR, NOT
ONLY TO RECONSIDER THE
MITIGATION, BUT THAT THERE WAS
NOT SUFFICIENT FACTS UPON WHICH
TO RECEIVE -- THE REFEREE HE TO
COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT HE
DID.
WHAT HAPPENS IS IN YOUR F. LEE
BAILEY CASE, WHERE REFEREE'S
RECOMMENDATION IS DISBARMENT,
WHICH IS THE MOST SEVERE PENALTY
THAT CAN BE ADMINISTERED, THIS
COURT MUST ENGAGE IN A CAREFUL
AND THOROUGH REVIEW OF THE
RECORD AND A REFEREE IN THE
COURT HELD IS REGARDING GUILT,
CARRIES A PRESUMPTION OF
CORRECTNESS, INCLUDING CLEARLY
EREASONOUS AND WITHOUT SUPPORT
IN THE -- EREASONOUS AND WITHOUT
SUPPORT IN THE RECORD.
HERE THE REFEREE'S FINDING WERE
NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE IN THE
RECORD.
>> WHICH FINDING ARE WE TALKING
ABOUT SPECIFICALLY?
>> IF I CAN JUST DEFER THAT
UNTIL -- THE RECORD EVIDENCE
CLEARLY CONTRADICT THE REFEREE'S
CON KLUGES AND FINDING OF FACT,
FINDING REGARDING GUILT.
>> COULD YOU PLEASE ANSWER
JUSTICE QUINCE'S QUESTION?
>> WELL, WHAT HAPPENS IS,
MR. KEEL LEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
KEELEY ONLY REPRESENTED JAMES
RICE --
>> YOU ARE TAKING ISSUE WITH
FINDING OF THE REFEREE.
WHAT FINDINGS SPECIFICALLY ARE
YOU TAKING ISSUE WITH, AND WHY
ISN'T THERE SUBSTANTIAL
COMPETENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT
THAT FINDING?
>> THE FACT THAT HE INDICATES
THAT MR. KEELEY IN SOME WAY
MISAPPROPRIATED THE FUNDS OF THE
CAMPBELL ESTATE.
THAT IS NOT SO.
WHAT I'M GOING TO TRY TO ARGUE
TO YOU IS THE FACTS, AS I SEE
THEM, THAT INDICATE THAT THERE
WAS NOT SUPPORT IN THE RECORD
FOR THE FINDINGS BY THE REFEREE.
>> DID THE AUDITOR IN THIS CASE
NOT MAKE THAT SPECIFIC OPINION?
>> THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS I
WOULD WANT TO GIVE AN
OPPORTUNITY OR ATTACK THE ORDER,
WHAT HIS BASIS OF HIS FINDINGS
HAD NO SUPPORT IN THE RECORD AND
THAT WHAT WE SHOWED ALMOST
EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE AT THE
HEARING HAS TO WHAT THE AUDITOR
MADE THE ALLEGATIONS.
IN FACT, THE ARGUMENT IS THAT,
THAT THE AUDITOR MADE
MISCALCULATIONS IN THE MATTER.
>> SO YOU WERE ABLE TO DISPROVE
THAT HOVER THIS PERIOD OF
TIME -- OVER THIS PERIOD OF
TIME, THERE WERE OVER 187
SHORTFALLS IN YOUR CLIENT'S
TRUST ACCOUNT?
>> I'M A LITTLE HARD OF HEARING?
>> THE AUDITOR FOUND OVER THE
PERIOD OF TIME HE HE EXAMINED
THE TRUST RECORDS IN HIS ATTEMPT
TO RECONCILE THE TRUST ACCOUNTS,
THAT THERE WERE OVER 187
SHORTFALLS IN THE TRUST ACCOUNT.
AND WHAT YOU ARE TELLING ME IS
THAT YOU CAN DISPROVE EACH AND
EVERY ONE OF THOSE 187
SHORTFALLS IN THE TRUST ACCOUNT?
>> WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT
THE NATURE OF MR. KEELEY'S
BUSINESS, WHAT WE INDICATED WAS
IS WE HAD A SUMMARY THAT SHOWED
THE MONTHS, I BELIEVE IT WAS
RESPONDENT 18, THAT INDICATED
THAT AS MR. KEELEY HAS THIS HACK
AT THIS PRACTICE, THAT AT A
CLOSING HE WILL GET MONEYS IN
THAT DO NOT CLEAR AND HE HAS TO
IMMEDIATELY SEND OUT THE MONEY
AND THERE IS -- THERE ARE
SHORTFALLS IN HIS -- IN HIS
ACCOUNT FOR A PERIOD OF TIME.
HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE BANK,
THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT HIS
PRACTICE IS AND THAT IT IS A
FLOW.
THE MONTHS OF SEPTEMBER OF 1997,
MR. KEEL LIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! KEELEY HAD $500,000 IN THE
ACCOUNT IN THE BEGINNING, ENDED
UP WITH $300,000 IN THE ACCOUNT.
THERE WAS DISBURSEMENT OF OVER
$1 MILLION AND THERE WERE
DEPOSITS OF $700,000.
THAT'S HOW HIS ACCOUNTS ALWAYS
WORKED.
>> SO PROBATE SECTION OF THE
BAR, IS A LARGE SECTION OF THE
BAR, SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS IF
YOU'RE GOING TO DO A PROBATE OR
REAL ESTATE PRACTICE, YOU CANNOT
COMPLY WITH THE TRUST
REQUIREMENTS OF THE BAR, THAT
YOU HAVE MONTHLY RECK SILL
--
RECONCILIATIONS AN ANNUAL
RECONCILIATIONS, ETC., IS THAT
YOUR POSITION?
>> WELL IF IT BECOMES
IMPRACTICAL, THEY CHANGED THE
RULE THAT YOU CAN ALLOW NOW AS I
CITED IN THE BRIEF, YOU ALLOW
SMALL AMOUNT OF MONEY TO COVER
EXPENSE HES.
WELL IN A REAL ESTATE PRACTICE
AS MR. KEELEY HAS, YOU HAVE
THESE CHECKS COMING IN, SOME OF
THEM ARE FOR $500,000, $600,000,
AND IT TAKES LOGICALLY, IN THE
BUSINESS WORLD, IT TAKES LONGER
TO CLEAR A DEPOSIT THAN TO
HAVE -- TO PAY OFF -- PAYOUT
FUNDS.
BECAUSE ONE IS COMING FROM OUT
OF STATE AND ONE IS MAYBE A
LAWYER'S -- A LOCAL --
>> SO YOU PAY OUT THE MONEY
BEFORE YOU ACTUALLY HAVE IT IN
YOUR ACCOUNT?
I MEAN -- I'M STILL NOT
FOLLOWING YOUR ARGUMENT HERE,
BECAUSE WHEN YOU PUT THE MONEY
IN YOUR TRUST ACCOUNT, YOU ARE
SUPPOSED TO PAY IT OUT TO
SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS ACCORDING
TO WHATEVER THE CLOSING
STATEMENTS MIGHT BE OR
SETTLEMENT STATEMENTS, WHATEVER
IT IS.
AND SO THERE ARE ALLEGATIONS IN
HERE THAT SOME OF THESE MONEYS
CAME OUT NOT PURSUANT TO SOME OF
THOSE PROCEDURES.
CAN YOU TELL US THAT THOSE
FINDINGS ARE NOT CORRECT, THAT
YOUR CLIENT DID NOT TAKE MONEYS
OUT OF THESE ACCOUNTS WITHOUT
ACCOUNTING FOR THE CLIENT OR THE
PERSON THAT THE MONEYS WERE SENT
TO?
>> WELL, I THINK HALL THE
ALLEGATIONS THAT HE -- WHAT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REALLY, WHAT
THE BAR ALLEGATIONS WERE,
$98,000 WORTH OF CHECKS, AND
THAT WHAT THOSE CHOKES WERE ALL
REFERENCED FOR THE CAMPBELL
ESTATE FUND.
AND THAT WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT --
>> IS THAT THE ESTATE THAT THEIR
CLIENT WAS ENTITLED TO 6 AT THIS
THOUSAND DOLLARS FROM?
>> -- $60,000 FROM?
>> YES.
>> AND THERE WAS 40,000 SOME
DOLLARS MORE THAT YOUR CLIENT
GOT.
HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?
>> MR. KEELEY WAS HIRED BY JAMES
RICE AND JAMES RICE DID NOT
APPEAR AT THE FINAL HEARING.
THAT A WAGS -- THAT WAS IN THE
SUMMER OF 1997.
MR. KEELEY FIRST STARTED TO GET
THE CHECKS FROM RICE FOR PAYMENT
OF HIS FUNDS IN THE FALL OF
2001.
I SHOULD SAY THAT THE BAR
COMPLAINT WAS IN THE SPRING OF
2002.
BEFORE RICE STARTED SENDING --
PAYING KEELEY THE $63,600 THAT
HE PAID HIM FOR HIS ATTORNEYS
FEES, MR. KEELEY WAS WRITING
CHECKS AGAINST THE TRUST
ACCOUNT, REFERENCING HIS -- THE
CAMPBELL ESTATE, BECAUSE
INDICATING THAT THOSE ARE MONEYS
THAT HE WAS GOING TO BE PAID.
HE CONTENDED THAT HE --
>> ISN'T THAT IN ITSELF A
VIOLATION, PAYING OUT MONEYS FOR
AN ESTATE WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE
THE MONEYS IN YOUR ACCOUNT?
>> WELL HE HAD THE MONEY IN THE
ACCOUNT.
>> HE HAD SOME OTHER MONEY IN
HIS ACCOUNT.
BUT DID HE THE MONEY FROM THAT
ESTATE IN THAT ACCOUNT?
YOU JUST SAID --
>> NO, HE DID NOT, BECAUSE WHAT
HAPPENS WAS, HE HE WAS -- HE
REPRESENTED PROOIS, WHO -- RICE,
WHO WAS THE PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CAMPBELL
ESTATE.
THE AUTHORITY TO REPRESENT IS
B1.
RICE REPRESENTED THE CAMPBELL
ESTATE AND HE HANDLED ALL THE
FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF THE
CAMPBELL ESTATE.
RICE DID NOT APPEAR AT THE FINAL
HEARING, THE BAR'S ORDER WAS THE
ONLY WITNESS AND YOU HAVE
WRITTEN IN RAYMOND THAT IT
STANDS FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT
WHERE THERE IS ONLY ONE WITNESS,
THE -- IT IS NECESSARY TO
SUSTAIN A CHARGE OF ATTORNEY
MISCONDUCT, IT CANNOT FLOW FROM
THAT TESTIMONY OF THAT ONE
WITNESS, UNLESS THE WITNESS IS
CORROBORATED TO SOME EXTENT BY
THE FACTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH
WE CONTEND WAS NOT SHOWN HERE.
RICE HIRED MR. KEELEY TO HANDLE
THE SALE OF THE DECEDENT'S
HOUSE.
THAT'S ALL HE WAS REQUIRED TO
DO.
AND HE ACCOUNTED FOR ALL OF THE
CAMPBELL HE IS INDICATE FUNDS,
THAT HE RECEIVED.
WHAT IT WAS WAS THE PROCEEDS OF
THE ESTATE -- OF THE SALE OF THE
RESIDENCE, DECEDENT'S RESIDENCE,
WHICH WAS ABOUT $141,000.
THERE WAS FUNDS TO SETTLE THE
WALKER CLAIM.
SOME LADY SAID THAT SHE HAD SOME
INTEREST IN THE HOUSE, AND SO
MR. KEELEY GOT -- FROM THE --
FROM RICE, $42,000 THAT HE PAID
BEFORE AND THE LAST ONE THAT HE
GOT, THERE WAS 30,000 -- THERE
WAS $30,000 DUE FOR THE FLORIDA
HE!!!!!!ESTATE TAX AND RICE SENT HIM
$20,000 AND THEN MR. KEELEY PAID
OUT $30,000.
SO THAT ALL THE MONEY THAT
KEELEY GOT FOR THE CAMPBELL
ESTATE, HE ACCOUNTED FOR.
HE DIDN'T HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR
THE $63,600 THAT HE RECEIVED.
ONCE HE GOT IT, IT ALL WENT INTO
HIS TRUST ACCOUNT, THAT'S HOW
RICE WROTE THE CHECK -- THE
CHECKS WERE WRITTEN THAT RICE --
IT ALL WENT TO THE TRUST ACCOUNT
AND THEN HE WITHDREW THAT.
SO ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS
THE $34,000.
>> YOU ARE IN TO YOUR REBUTTAL
SIR.
I WOULD CAUTION YOU.
USE YOUR ARGUMENT AS YOU PLEASE.
>> I DID NOT -- HE DID NOT HAVE
TO ACCOUNT TO THE CAMPBELL
ESTATE FOR THE FEES THAT RICE
PAID HIM.
THOSE WERE HIS MONEYS.
ONCE HE GOT THEM, HE COULD DO
ANYTHING WITH THEM.
THEY WERE PUT IN TO THE THRUST
ACCOUNT AND HE TOOK THEM OUT OF
THE TRUST ACCOUNT AS HE NEEDED
THEM.
NOW WHAT WE SHOWED TO THE
REFEREE IS THAT MR. KEELEY IS
OWED MONEY FROM THE CAMPBELL HE
ESTATE.
IF YOU LOOK AT OUR 14 CHART 1,
HE OVERDISBURSED.
MR. KEEL PRIVILEGE ALWAYS
MAINTAINED -- KEELEY ALWAYS
MAINTAINED A CREDIT BALLAST TO
THE CAMPBELL -- BALANCE, AS TO
THE CAMPBELL ESTATE FUND AND
THAT ENDED UP -- THERE'S AN
ENDING BALANCE THAT THE --
THERE'S $4,010.26, THAT IS WITH
THE CAMPBELL ESTATE.
THEY STILL HAVE A CREDIT
ACCOUNT.
IN THE MATTER.
WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT NO ONE
TESTIFIED AS TO HOW MR. KEELEY'S
RECORDS WERE DEFICIENT, ALTHOUGH
ADMITTEDLY, HIS HANDWRITTEN
INDIVIDUAL LEDGER SYSTEM DOES
NOT STATE, AND IT'S PROBABLY THE
HEART OF THE PROBLEM, BECAUSE AS
YOU'LL SEE IN THE EXHIBITS, WHAT
IT IS HE WRITES THEM OUT LIKE
ALMOST ANCIENT TIMES, BUTS
THAT'S WHAT HE DID FOR THE MANY
YEARS THAT HE HE PRACTICED AND I
THINK HE WENT WITH THAT.
NOW THE $98,000 CHECKS FROM
MR. KEELEY, $63,600 WAS THE
WITHDRAWAL OF J.F.K.'S FEES,
FROM MR. KEELEY'S FEES, PAID TO
HIM BY RICE.
THE REMAINING CHECKS HOANL
REFERENCED AS I SAID, THE
CAMPBELL HE IS INDICATE, AS
MR. KEELEY WAS ENTITLED TO
ADDITIONAL FUNDS.
THE AUTHORITY TO REPRESENT, IF
YOU LOOK AT B1, HE HAD THE
AUTHORITY, IT WAS BLANKETED
DIDN'T SAY THAT HE WAS GOING TO
GET X AMOUNT OF DOLLARS, IT WAS
JUST WHAT HE WAS HE PAID FOR.
WHAT HE HAD DONE.
THE FORM 706 THAT THEY TALK
ABOUT HE WAS ONLY ENTILED TO
60,000, RIGHT IN THE FORM,
THAT'S R9, SAYS THAT IT'S
ONLY -- IT'S ONLY AN ESTIMATE.
AND THEY PUT DOWN $60,000.
AND THAT'S WHAT IT IS, AND
THAT'S NOT -- WAS NOT IN
CONCRETE.
THAT'S JUST WHAT THE ESTIMATE
WAS FOR THE -- FOR THE FEDERAL
ESTATE TAX AND THERE WERE -- THE
ADDITIONAL FEES THAT MR. KEELEY
SAID THAT HE OWED, THE $34,000,
HE HE NEVER GOT PAID.
HE STILL OWED ALL THAT MONEY.
NOW, WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CASE
IS THAT RICE THOUGHT HE WAS
ENTITLED -- HE NEEDED $39,000
MORE TO PAY THESE HEIRS IN THE
MATTER, AND SO HE WROTE A LETTER
TO THE BAR, SAYING HE WANTED
$39,000.
KEELEY PAID HIM THE $39,000 TO,
YOU KNOW, TO SATISFY THE CLAIM,
AND THAT HE INTENDED TO PURSUE,
TO GET THE FEES THAT HE WAS THIS
ENTILED TO.
>> MR. GARRETT, YOU HAVE PASSED
YOUR TIME.
IF HUED BRING YOUR ARGUMENT TO A
CONCLUSION, PLEASE, SIR.
YOU MAY MAKE YOUR CONCLUSION.
>> PARDON?
>> OK.
>> MR. SOIFER.
>> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT.
>> PLEASE PULL THE MICROPHONE
OVER.
>> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT,
MICHAEL SOIFER FOR THE FLORIDA
BAR.
THE REPORT OF REFEREE SHOULD BE
APPROVED IN THIS MATTER, IT'S
BASED ON COMPETENT AND
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT
MR. KEEL MY MISAPPROPRIATED IN
EXCESS OF $43,000 IN FUNDS
BELONGING TO THE CAMPBELL
ESTATE.
>> IS THERE ANY MONEY DUE CLIENT
AT THIS TIME?
IN OTHER WORDS, IS THERE MONEY
THAT HE HAS NOT PAID BACK?
>> IT WOULD APPEAR THAT WAY,
BECAUSE --
>> IT WOULD APPEAR WHICH WAY?
>> THAT HE STILL OWES THE ESTATE
MONEY.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT HE NEVER
PREPARED A FULL AND DETAILED
ACCOUNTING.
HE ONLY PREPARED A DRAFT
ACCOUNTING AND THE REASON I SAY
IT APPEARS IS THAT HE PAID THE
ESTATE BACK $39,000, BUT HE TOOK
IN EXCESS OF HIS FEE, MORE THAN
$43,000.
>> THAT'S BECAUSE WHEN WE GO
THROUGH THESE CASES, AND, YOU
KNOW, DISBARMENT IS THE
PRESUMPTIVE SANCTION, BUT AT
LEAST FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, I
LIKE TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND
WHETHER THIS IS A RESULT OF
SOMEBODY THAT JUST BLATANTLY
DISREGARDS THE BAR RULES, AND
DOESN'T ENGAGE IN GOAT
ACCOUNTING PRACTICES, -- GOOD
ACCOUNTING PRACTICES AND SOMEONE
THAT STEALS FROM CLIENTS ON A
REGULAR BASIS.
THERE WAS 187 TRANSACTIONS OR
WHATEVER THE NUMBER WAS,.
IS IT A COMBINATION OF BOTH IN
THIS SITUATION, THAT IS,
SOMEBODY WHO JUST BRAY
THANTLY -- BLATANTLY DISREGARDED
TRUST ACCOUNT RULES AS WELL AS
STOLE FROM CLIENTS?
>> THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT THIS
WAS AN INTENTIONAL
MISAPPROPRIATION.
AND THE REASON I SAY THAT, IS
THAT IF YOU -- INSTEAD OF
CONSIDERING THE 180 SOME
OCCASIONS WHERE THERE WAS A
SHORTFALL, MR. KEELEY WROTE TO
HIMSELF -- WELL, FIRST OF ALL,
HE DEPOSITED A TOTE EL AFTER
$273,000 INTO HIS TRUST ACCOUNT,
BELONGING TO THE CAMPBELL
ESTATE.
$1,401,000 OF -- $141,000 OF
THAT WAS FROM THE SALE OF THE
HOMESTEAD, BUT IN ADDITION TO
THAT, MR. RICE HAD LEFT
MR. KEELEY BLANK CHECKS FROM THE
ESTATE BANK ACCOUNT CONTAINING
HIS SIGNATURE, WHICH THE
RESPONDENT FILLED IN AND WITH --
USED 10 CHECKS TO DEPOSIT
$132,650 INTO HIS TRUST ACCOUNT,
IN ADDITION TO THAT.
SO HE HOLD $273,000.
NOW HE PAID TO HIMSELF IN EXCESS
OF $98,000 FROM THOSE FUNDS.
WHEN HE PREPARED THE ESTATE TAX
RETURN FOR MR. RICE'S SIGNATURE
IN AUGUST OF 1999, HE SET FORTH
ON THAT DOCUMENT THE $60,000
ATTORNEY FEE, WHICH HE -- WHICH
MR. KEELEY HAS STUCK BY
THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDING, ALL
OF A SUDDEN ON APPEAL WE HAVE
THIS NEW CLAIM.
>> HOW IS THAT AMOUNT ARRIVED
AT?
THE $60,000 FEE?
>> IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THERE
WAS AN AGREEMENT BY VIRTUE OF
MR. PROOIS'S SIGNATURE ON THE
DOCUMENT, THE ESTATE TAX RETURN,
THAT HE WAS AGREEABLE TO THAT
AMOUNT, AND THAT'S THE DEDUCTION
THAT THE STATE ESTATE RECEIVED
FOR THOSE ATTORNEYS FEES AND
THAT DOCUMENT WAS SIGNED --
>> WHAT WAS THE REASON THAT
MR. RICE WAS A WITNESS AT THE
PROCEEDING?
>> YOUR HONOR, MR. KEELEY HAS
ADMITTED THROUGHOUT THAT HE TOOK
THE $98,000, THERE'S NO DISPUTE
TO THAT, THERE'S NO DISPUTE THAT
HE FILLED IN BLANK ESTATE CHECKS
AND DEPOSITED THAT AMOUNT --
$273,000 INTO HIS TRUST ACCOUNT.
AND THERE IS -- WE REQUESTED
DOCUMENTATION FROM MR. KEELEY,
FROM THE BEGINNING, TO TRY AND
SUB STAINING YATE WHAT HE --
SUBSTANTIATE WHY HE TOOK THE
AMOUNT THAT HE TOOK.
HE COULD NOT -- HIS HAD MISSIONS
ARE ALL OVER THE RECORD.
IT WAS OUR THINKING THAT
MR. RICE'S TESTIMONY DID NOT
REALLY HAD ANYTHING MORE TO --
ADD ANYTHING MORE TO THOSE
FACTS.
>> SO MR. RICE WASN'T ASKED TO
COMMENT?
>> MR. RICE LIVES IN
PENNSYLVANIA.
>> YOU'RE GIVING A VERY LONG
ANSWER TO A QUESTION.
>> THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR,.
>> OF THE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE BAR TOLD MR. RICE, HIS
TESTIMONY WASN'T NECESSARY?
>> THE BAR DID NOT ASK HIM TO
TESTIFY AND MR. KEELEY DID NOT
ASK HIM TO TESTIFY.
>> I MEAN, THE REASON THAT WE --
I STARTED ASKING THESE QUESTIONS
IS THAT -- WELL, EVEN IF WE
DISBAR EVERYBODY THAT HAS A
TRUST ACCOUNT VIOLATION, THERE
ARE SOME CASES THAT ARE WORSE
THAN OTHERS, WHICH ARE IMPORTANT
IF PEOPLE TRY TO SEEK
REINSTATEMENT AND IT'S VERY
DIFFICULT, WHEN WE DON'T HAVE,
YOU KNOW, AN UNDERSTANDING
PRECISELY OF WHETHER THERE IS
STILL CLIENT INJURY OUT THERE.
WHEN THERE IS SOMEBODY THAT IS
OWED $40,000 AND HASN'T BEEN
PAID, AND IF THAT'S NOT
ESTABLISHED IN THE DISBARMENT
PROCEEDING, THEN WHEN DOWN THE
ROAD, THAT'S SORT OF UP IN THE
AIR, AND SO FROM MY POINT OF
VIEW, IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL
IN THESE CASES IF THE BAR DOES
TRY TO ESTABLISH PRECISE AMOUNTS
THAT WERE ACTUALLY STOLEN AND
NOT REPAID.
TO A CLIENT.
>> YOUR HONOR, I HAD NOT -- I
JUST WANTED TO DB DSH I'LL
RESPOND TO THAT.
I THINK THE BAR, THE AUDITOR DID
DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF THE
SHORTAGE, AND WHAT HE DID, IF
YOU TACK A LOOK AT THE BAR
EXHIBIT 21, HE WEPT THROUGH THE
ENTIRE ESTATE BANK ACCOUNT AND
HE WENT THROUGH ALL THE
TRANSACTIONS, THAT WENT FROM THE
ESTATE ACCOUNT TO THE -- TO
MR. KEELEY'S TRUST ACCOUNT.
HE ALSO DID A COMPLETE
RECONSTRUCTION OF MR. KEELEY'S
TRUST ACCOUNT AS IT PERTAINED TO
THE CAMPBELL ESTATE AND THAT WAS
THE BAR' EXHIBIT 21 AND THAT'S
WHERE WE ESTABLISHED THE
STATISTIC AMOUNT OF SHORTAGE.
I'M SORRY, I MIGHT HAVE
MISINTERPRETED YOUR QUESTION,
BECAUSE YOU ASKED ME IF THERE'S
ANY MONEY STILL OWED TO THE
BENEFICIARIES OF THE ESTATE, AND
MY RESPONSE TO YOU WAS THAT
WELL, GIVEN THE WAY THAT
MR. KEELEY HANDLED THIS ESTATE,
IT'S HARD TO TELL.
WE DO KNOW THAT HE TOOK IN
EXCESS OF $43,000 OF WHAT HE WAS
ENTITLED TO, AND JUST ONE MORE
POINT, IS WHEN MR. KEELEY
PREPARED THAT ESTATE TAX RETURN
IN AUGUST OF 19 NOON 9!!!! -- 1999 FOR
MR. RICE'S SIGNATURE WHICH
CONTAINED THAT FIGURE, AT THAT
POINT MR. KEELEY HAD ALREADY
WRITTEN 25 OF THOSE CHECKS TO
HIMSELF, IN EXCESS OF $83,000,
AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, HE HAD
GOTTEN THREE ADDITIONAL CHECKS
DIRECTLY FROM THE ESTATE FOR
$6,869, SO MR. KEELEY HAD IN
EXCESS OF $90,000 ALREADY THAT
HE HAD TAKEN FROM THE ESTATE,
AND HE PUT DOWN ON THAT ESTATE
TAX RETURN HIS FEE OF $60,000.
AND THAT'S WHAT MR. RICE SIGNED.
AND CERTAINLY IF THERE WAS PHI
DISCLOSURE -- THERE SHOULD HAVE
BEEN DISCLOSURE TO MR. RICE AND
THERE NEVER WAS.
>> OVER WHAT PERIOD OF TIME DID
THIS GO ON?
>> THIS BEGAN IN 1997, ALMOST
IMMEDIATELY HALF THE REAL ESTATE
PROCEEDS WERE DEPOSITED INTO HIS
TRUST ACCOUNT.
I THINK THE PROCEEDS WERE
DEPOSITED SEPTEMBER 1, THE FIRST
CHECKS WHAT WRITTEN SEPTEMBER 3.
HE HAD WRITTEN 28 OF THOSE
CHECKS BY AUGUST OF 2000 AND THE
LAST CHECK HE WROTE WAS IN MAY
OF 2002.
NOW, WHEN HE -- WHEN HE FILED
HIS PETITION FOR DISCHARGE, HE
PREPARED THE PETITION FOR
DISCHARGE FOR THE HE!!!!!! ESTATE.
HE HAD OBTAINED THE WAIVERS OF
THE BENEFICIARIES FOR THE FORMAL
ACCOUNTING, SO MR. KEELEY NEVER
HAD TO PREPARE A FORMAL
ACCOUNTING, BUT HE REPRESENTED
TO THE COURT THAT THE ESTATE WAS
FULLY DISCHARGED, THE ATTORNEYS
FEES WERE PAID AND EVERYTHING
WAS TAKEN CARE OF.
HE NEVER DISCLOSED TO MR. RICE
ANYTHING THAT HE'S ARGUING NOW
THAT SOMEHOW THERE'S ANOTHER
$30,000 HE'S OWED IN FEES.
>> WAS THERE EVER -- I REALIZE A
FORMAL ACCOUNTING WAS WAVED, BUT
ANYBODY WHO DOES THIS ESTATE
WORK PROVIDES TO THE CLIENT
EITHER A MONTHLY OR AT LEAST
WHEN YOU CLOSE OUT THE ESTATE, A
FINAL ACCOUNTING FOR BILLING,
ACCOUNTABILITY PURPOSES.
DID YOU EVER -- DID MR. RICE
EVER RECEIVE THAT OR DID THE BAR
EVER RECEIVE THAT?
>> AFTER THE BAR COMPLAINT WAS
FILED BY MR. RICE, HE REQUESTED,
MR. KEELEY, TO PREPARE AN
ACCOUNTING, AND TALES THE BAR'S
EXHIBIT 9 AND WHAT IT IS, IT'S
CALLED A DRAFT ACCOUNTING AND IT
WAS MAILED TO MR. RICE IN MAY OF
2002, AFTER THAT $39,000 PAYMENT
WAS MADE, AND PRESUMABLY, THE
ACCOUNTING PURPORTED TO SHOW
THAT THE ESTATE WAS FULLY
DISTRIBUTED.
THAT ACCOUNTING BY MR. KEELEY'S
OWN ADMISSION IS INACCURATE.
IT SHOWS HIS ATTORNEYS FEES
STILL AT $60,000 AND IT DOES NOT
DISCLOSE ANY OF THOSE EXTRA
PAYMENTS THAT HE MADE TO
HIMSELF.
HE NEVER TOLD MR. RICE.
>> DID YOU COMPLETE YOUR ANSWER,
JUSTICE WELLS, ABOUT THE BASE
FEE, WHERE THAT CAME FROM?
HE HAD INQUIRED ABOUT THAT, THE
60,000, WHERE DID THAT COME
FROM?
>> THAT -- WHEN WE -- WHEN THE
AUDITOR DISCOVERED THE CHECKS,
THE SERIES OF CHECKS WRITTEN
TO -- THAT HE WROTE TO HIMSELF
TOTALING AT THAT TIME, IT WAS
93,000, WE HAD FOUND 28 OF THOSE
CHECK, HE SENT MR. KEELEY A
LETTER ASKING HIM TO EXPLAIN
WERE THESE FOR HIS FEES, AND
MR. KEELEY DID NOT RESPOND TO
THAT LETTER, SO WE BROUGHT HIM
BEFORE THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE
AND HE GAVE A SWORN STATEMENT
AND WE ASKED HIM WHAT HIS FEES
WERE AND HIS ANSWER WAS IT WAS
$60,000, BECAUSE WE HAD HIS
AUTHORITY TO REPRESENT, WHICH
WAS THE BAR'S EXHIBIT 1.
WHICH SET FORTH AN HOURLY RATE.
BUT IT ALSO SET FORTH A
PERCENTAGE AND ALSO IF THERE WAS
ANY EXTRAORDINARY THINGS THAT
HAD THOB DONE, IT ALSO PROVIDED
FOR THAT.
MR. KEEL LIVE REALLY DIDN'T --
KEELEY REALLY DIDN'T HAVE A TIME
REFERENCE.
IT'S STILL IN EXCESS OF 3% OF
THE ESTATE, BECAUSE THAT WOULD
AMOUNT TO PROBABLY $30,000 OR
$40,000.
>> WHAT WAS THE VALUE OF THE
ESTATE, TOTAL ASSET OF THE
ESTATE?
>> IT WAS LISTED AT $888,000 OR
SO, AND MR. KEELEY TESTIFIED IT
WAS AROUND $900,000.
NOW, -- I'M SORRY, JUST TO
CONTINUE.
WHEN WE ASKED MR. KEELEY ABOUT
HIS FEE AT THE GRIEVANCE
COMMITTEE, HE HE SAID THAT THIS
WAS IN THE ESTATE TAX RETURN OF
$60,000 AND IT CONTAINED
MR. RICE'S SIGNATURE, HE SIGNED
IT, SO THAT IS WHERE THAT FIGURE
COMES FROM.
>> AND YOU HAD AN ESTATE CLOSING
LETTER, BOTH FROM THE I.R.S. AND
THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE?
>> YES.
THAT -- I BELIEVE THE FLORIDA
CLOSING LETTER CAME AFTER THE
FEDERAL ONE, AND THAT CAME IN --
IT WAS -- I THINK IT WAS
SEPTEMBER 2001, IT WAS RIGHT
AROUND THE TIME THAT MR. KEELEY
MADE A DISTRIBUTION AND SENT THE
LETTER TO MR. PROOIS, SAYING
THAT -- MR. RICE, SAYING WHEN I
GET CERTAIN DOCUMENT BACK FROM
YOU, I'LL MAKE THESE FINAL TWO
DISTRICTS OF $25,000 HAND THEN
WE'LL PETITION TO CLOSE THE
ESTATE.
OF COURSE, HE PETITIONED TO
CLOSE THE ESTATE, BUT NEVER MADE
THE LAST TWO DISTRICTS UNTIL THE
BAR COMPLAINT WAS FILED.
>> NOW HE DID MAKE A DEPOSIT TO
THE ESTATE OF THE 30 WIN
THOUSAND DOLLARS, THAT WAS --
$39,000, THAT WAS TO COVER THE
TWO DISTRICTS OF $25,000 EACH,
CORRECT?
>> YES.
>> BECAUSE THERE WAS ALREADY
$11,000 OR SO IN THE ESTATE.
>> YES.
>> WHERE DID THE $39,000 NUMBER
COME FROM?
>> IT CAME FROM HIS TRUST
ACCOUNT.
HE DIDN'T HAVE SUFFICIENT FUNDS
FROM THE CAMEL ESTATE --
CAMPBELL ESTATE REMAINING IN HIS
TRUST ACCOUNT.
HE ONLY HAD $16,000 AND IF YOU
LOOK AT THE BAR' EXHIBIT 21,
THAT SETS FORTH THE FULL HAND
COMPLETE ACCOUNTING.
SO WHERE THAT CAME FROM, IT WAS
EITHER -- IT WAS HIS HONE MONEY.
I MEAN, HE HE TESTIFIED THAT IT
WAS HIS OWN MONEY.
HE HAD A PERSONAL REAL ESTATE
TRANSACTION IN FEBRUARY OF 2001,
FOR $450,000, THAT WENT IN TO
HIS TRUST ACCOUNT, PLUS HE HAD
DEPOSITED 300 -- IN EXCESS OF
$300,000 FROM HIS MOTHER'S TRUST
INTO HIS TRUST ACCOUNT, SO HE
WAS CO-MINGLING HIS HONE FUNDS
AND HIS TESTIMONY AND THE REFER
REFOUND WAS THAT HE USED HIS
MONEY TO COVER THAT SHORTAGE.
>> IN THE REFEREE'S REPORT, IT
REFERS TO A PRIOR DISCIPLINE, IN
RELATION TO THIS TRUST
ACCOUNTING CONCERN.
CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THAT?
>> IN 1994 ARE THERE WAS AN
ADMONISHMENT FOR MINOR
MISCONDUCT AN ONE OF THE
ELEMENTS OF THAT WAS A
COMMINGLING OF FUNDS.
>> RIGHT.
>> SO HE HAS THE PRIOR
DISCIPLINE.
>> DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING MORE
ABOUT THAT.
>> I'M SORRY, I DON'T.
>> I WOULD SUBMIT THAT
DISBARMENT IS THE APPROPRIATE
SANCTION HERE.
THERE'S NO MITIGATION.
THE CONDUCT IS EXTREMELY
EGREGIOUS.
IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE
CORONIS CASE, WHICH IS VERY
APPLICABLE, IN THAT CASE, THE
ATTORNEY ALSO MISAPPROPRIATED
MONEY IN A SERIES OF PAYMENTS
OVER A PERIOD OF TIME.
AND THEN HE PREPARED A FALSE
ACCOUNTING TO THE BENEFICIARIES,
TO COVER IT UP, AND THAT'S WHAT
HAPPENED HERE.
AND IN THAT CASE, HE HAD SEVEN
MITIGATING FACTORS, INCLUDING
PERSONAL PROBLEMS, INCLUDING
CHARACTER AND REPUTATION, AND
THAT WASN'T ENOUGH, HAND IT
SHOULDN'T BE ENOUGH.
IT SHOULDN'T BE ENOUGH.
WHEN -- THE COURT HAS HELD THAT
WHEN YOU PRESUME A DISBARMENT
FOR STEALING MONEY, THE
MITIGATION YOU SHOW HAD BETTER
BE SPECIAL, HAD BETTER BE
SIGNIFICANT, BECAUSE IT'S NOT A
LOOPHOLE TO SAY, WELL, I HAD
THIS HAPPEN HAND I HAD THAT
HAPPEN.
YOU KNOW, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW,
PEOPLE HAVE PERSONAL PROBLEMS,
AS THE COURT HAS SAID, IT'S
KNOTS AN EXCUSE TO STEAL MONEY
HAND PEOPLE WITH GOOD CHARACTER,
IT'S NOT HAND EXCUSE.
PAST GOOD DEEDS DO NOT EXCUSE
THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOR.
AND PEOPLE WHO DO CARE ABOUT
THEIR CHARACTER AND REPUTATION,
IT'S CERTAINLY NOT -- IT'S A
KNOCK ON THEIR INTEGRITY TO SAY
THAT IT'S OK BECAUSE YOU HAVE
HAD A GOOD CHARACTER IN THE PAST
TO STEAL A CLIENT'S MONEY.
SO FOR ALL THOSE REASONS, I
THINK THAT THIS IS CLEARLY A
DISBARMENT CASE.
>> YOU FINISHED YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> YOU'VE USED MR. GARRETT, ALL
YOUR TIME AS WELL.
WE'LL TAKE -- WE APPRECIATE THE
ARGUMENTS AND WE'LL TAKE THE
CASE UNDER ADVISEMENT.
THE COURT WILL TAKE ITS MORNING
RECESS.
>> PLEASE RISE.