In re Wilson

In re Wilson

Opinion

 [*453]  [**1154]   In this case, respondent knowingly used his clients' money as if it were his own. We hold that disbarment is the only appropriate discipline. We also use this occasion to state that generally all such cases shall result in disbarment. We foresee no significant exceptions to this rule and expect the result to be almost invariable.

Of the eight complaints filed against respondent with District Ethics Committee VIII (Middlesex County), two involved misappropriation. In one, respondent failed for almost two years to turn over $ 23,000 -- the proceeds from the sale of a house -- to the client. After the ethics complaint was filed, respondent paid the client but never accounted for the location or use [***2]  of the funds in the interim. In the other, respondent obtained money for a client in the form of a $ 4,300 check to the client's order. Respondent then forged the client's endorsement, deposited the proceeds in his own trust account, and has yet to turn the funds over to the client.

 [*454]  Respondent's professional misconduct extends beyond these instances of misappropriation. In the other complaints, the Disciplinary Review Board found that respondent lied to clients, wantonly disregarded their interests, and advised them to commit fraud. Moreover, he was inexcusably uncooperative in the ethics proceedings. The Disciplinary Review Board recommended disbarment.

It is clear from all of this that respondent is unfit to be a lawyer. We do not, however, discuss any charges other than misappropriation since disbarment is mandated by that alone.

MISAPPROPRIATION

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.