 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Farley's Case3/8/2002
s to consider, we conclude that disbarrment is the appropriate sanction in this case. " ven if an attorney is under the greatest of personal or financial pressures, there is no justification for commingling and converting client funds." Doherty's Case, 142 N.H. 446, 452 (1997). The respondent not only converted his client's funds for his own use, but did so after having been ordered by the court not to dispose of or convey his clients' assets in any way.
The respondent also argues that his use of his client's funds was not knowing. Ignorance is no excuse. Had he complied with Rule 1.15(b) by delivering the settlement proceeds to his client promptly, and had he complied with Rule 1.15(a) by safeguarding the funds and maintaining sufficient financial records, he would have realized that the assets belonged to his client.
The respondent also argues that the referee erroneously understated the extent of his disability. We need not reach this issue because we hold that, in any event, disbarrment is the appropriate sanction.
Accordingly, we order disbarrment on all the violations charged and further order that the respondent reimburse the committee for all of its expenses, including legal fees, incurred in investigating and prosecuting this matter. See Sup. Ct. R. 37(16).
So ordered.
NADEAU and DUGGAN, JJ., concurred.
|