|
NY Lawyer
Who Helped Convict By Samuel Maull NEW YORK -- A lawyer whose testimony led to a Brooklyn judge's bribery conviction was sentenced Tuesday to 1 to 3 years in prison and ordered to pay more than $400,000 in restitution. He also lost his law license. Gary Berenholtz, 56, was sentenced in Manhattan on his Nov. 14, 2006, guilty plea to second-degree grand larceny. He admitted that he had stolen from a dead law firm partner, Joseph Frost, and three clients. Berenholtz, of Woodmere, apologized to the court, his family, his clients and Muriel Frost, the widow of his late partner. He noted that he had been disbarred, said he intended to repay all the money he had stolen and reported that he was undergoing psychotherapy to get insight into what made him steal. State Supreme Court Justice Renee White told Berenholtz he stole because he "wanted to live well, more than well," and wanted to "keep up a front" that he and his family were enjoying a lavish lifestyle. The judge said that what he did, because he was a lawyer, was "an abomination." She called his plea deal "generous" and said it had been influenced by a letter that Brooklyn District Attorney Charles J. Hynes wrote in his behalf. In that letter, the judge said, Hynes praised Berenholtz' cooperation in the prosecutor's investigation into judicial corruption in Brooklyn. That cooperation included Berenholtz' secret recording of a conversation with Justice Victor I. Barron. The recording helped lead to a guilty plea by Barron in 2002 to demanding $115,000 in bribes from Berenholtz' client in return for approving a $4.9 million settlement in an automobile accident case. Barron was sentenced to three to nine years in prison. Berenholtz' partner, Frost, died of heart failure on Sept. 26, 2005. Four days later, prosecutors said, Berenholtz improperly transferred $63,000 from Frost's accounts into his own. The defendant admitted he stole another $400,000-plus from three clients; the precise amount was being disputed. The judge ordered him to repay all of it. Berenholtz' lawyer, Ronald Aiello, presented Assistant District Attorney Diana Florence with a check for $63,000 to give to Frost's widow and said his client was filled with remorse for his crimes. Lawyer
Caught With Pants Down By The Associated Press PHILADELPHIA -- A criminal defense lawyer was arrested after a sheriff's deputy found him naked with a 14-year-old girl in a courthouse conference room, authorities said Tuesday. The deputy looked into the room during rounds Monday afternoon and discovered 49-year-old Larry Charles and the girl, said Lt. Dan Bagnell of the police department's Special Victims Unit. "He had asked for sex. But there was no physical contact we're aware of," Bagnell said. Bagnell said the girl was not a client of Charles, but their exact relationship was unclear. Charles was charged with solicitation, attempted statutory sexual assault and related counts. He was awaiting arraignment Tuesday and bail had not yet been set. A woman who answered the phone at his office said she could not comment. Courts were closed Monday for Martin Luther King Jr. Day, but the courthouse was open for attorneys who needed to conduct business in the building. Lawyer Who Blew Whistle on Judge Pleads Guilty to Thefts By Daniel Wise Gary L. Berenholtz, who blew the whistle on former Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Victor I. Barron, has pleaded guilty to stealing $476,000 from a deceased partner and three clients and will be sentenced on Jan. 23. As a result of Mr. Berenholtz's revelations, Mr. Barron pleaded guilty to demanding a $115,000 bribe in a personal injury case and served nearly four years in the custody of state prison officials before being released on parole last May. In 2005, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office accused Mr. Berenholtz of stealing $63,000 from his former partner's escrow account four days after the partner died. The accusations were subsequently expanded to include thefts from funds Mr. Berenholtz was holding in escrow for three clients. Under a plea agreement, Acting Supreme Court Justice Renee A. White is expected to sentence Mr. Berenholtz to 1 to 3 years in prison and require him to pay $476,000 in restitution. Pimp
Slaps Betrayal By Laura Italiano
"He used to say he was one of my best friends," Itzler complained of his former defense attorney, Paul Bergrin. "But I think he's a greedy f---ing lawyer - just like 99 percent of all the other ones." Legal eagle Bergrin is
expected to surrender himself early next week on charges that he
took over Itzler's pricey Manhattan escort service, NY
HOOKED: "King of All Pimps" Jason
Confidential, after Itzler got
arrested - thereby But once Itzler got arrested, Bergrin, a former Army major and Newark-based federal prosecutor, allegedly repaid Itzler's largesse by running the business for himself. He allegedly did so, behind his client's back, for two months in early 2005 - even reincorporating it under his own name. "He got addicted to sex with all these hot girls, and this was the only way to keep feeding his addiction," Itzler said. The former pimp gloated that while he himself raked in as much as $800,000 a month, his successor allegedly made only about $50,000 to $80,000 total before pulling the plug after two months. "You can't think with your penis in this business," noted Itzler, who was sentenced Thursday to 1 1/2 to three years in prison for promoting prostitution. Still, he's not a "hater," and would never cooperate against Bergrin, Itzler insisted. "My life's beautiful no matter what anyone does to me," he said. Also yesterday, Bergrin's 27-year-old law clerk, James Cortopassi, pleaded not guilty to charges he helped launder the escorts' earnings. He was released last night on $150,000 bail. NY Lawyer
Arrested in Las Vegas By Daniel Wise Shelley Ann Rivera, who was holding more than $1 million from the sale of the aunt's two houses, failed to produce the $860,000 the aunt, Annette Rivera, needed to close on a new home in Riverdale on Oct. 11. After failing to turn over the funds, the attorney went to Las Vegas, where she was arrested, according to the Westchester District Attorney's Office. In a letter to her family, Ms. Rivera apologized and acknowledged a gambling problem, according to Joel J. Reinfeld of Fischer, Porter & Thomas, who represents the aunt in a lawsuit to recover the funds. Ms. Rivera, who represented her aunt in the two earlier sales, faces automatic disbarment and a maximum sentence of 5 to 15 years if convicted on the second-degree grand larceny count charged in the indictment. Ex-Partner Accused of Cover-Up Bid in Bank Execs' Fraud By Daniel Ostrovsky Hamilton was taken over by federal regulators who uncovered a multimillion dollar fraud that led to convictions of the banks' top three executives. In a Nov. 6 notice of charges, the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency announced that it is seeking to impose a $250,000 fine against Loumiet and to bar him from representing banks and other insured depository institutions. "Respondent Loumiet harmed the Bank by concealing the crimes of the Bank's chairman and CEO ... its president ... and its CFO ... whom Respondent Loumiet and his former law firm, Greenberg Traurig LLP ... represented while they purported to represent the Bank," the OCC charges. "The officers orchestrated unlawful transactions in order to hide the Bank's losses resulting from the Russian debt crisis of 1998." The OCC charges that Loumiet "protected the officers [of Hamilton Bank] by making materially false and misleading assertions, and by suppressing material evidence." The OCC focuses on two investigatory reports by Loumiet and Greenberg Traurig shareholder Robert Grossman. The OCC contends that as a result of the favorable reports, Hamilton executives "steered additional business to Greenberg and Respondent Loumiet. Greenberg collected $1.16 million of fees from [Hamilton Bank] during 2001-02, and [Loumiet] received a share of these fees." Loumiet, now a partner in Hunton & Williams' Miami office, is fighting the charges, which he contends are "devoid of merit," "vindictive" and "unfair." Instead, he blames Hamilton's external auditor, the bank's regulatory and litigation counsel, and the OCC itself for the failure to detect the bank's problems earlier. "These sweeping allegations of criminal conduct, if made outside the protection of legal process and by anyone other than the U.S. Government, would be slander, per se," states Loumiet's sharply worded Nov. 27 answer to the OCC's complaint. He is represented by a Washington, D.C.-based team of lawyers from Venable. In an interview Friday, Loumiet's lawyer, William D. Coston, also blamed the bank's officers saying that "they fooled the bank regulators, they fooled the bank accountants and they fooled the law firm." Coston, of Venable in Washington, D.C., said the OCC should not be allowed to use hindsight to question the conclusions in reports complied by his client. Last week, the Daily Business Review reported that Greenberg Traurig and Greenberg shareholder Robert L. Grossman recently agreed to pay $925,000 in fines to settle OCC allegations related to their legal work for Hamilton Bank, which collapsed in one of Miami's biggest bank frauds. Loumiet worked with Grossman on the Hamilton matter. Loumiet, who spent 19 years at Greenberg and became a principal shareholder, headed that firm's international and banking practices for 10 years. That included 2000 and 2001, when the law firm was hired to compile two reports for the Hamilton Bank audit committees. He joined Hunton & Williams in 2001 and is currently a partner in the firm's business practice group, where he focuses on international business and banking. In a statement on the consent agreements involving Greenberg Traurig and Grossman as well as the charges against Loumiet, a Greenberg spokeswoman said the firm "respectfully disagreed with the OCC's assessment of the facts." She said the consent orders resolved the charges against Greenberg "in a manner satisfactory to the OCC, and without further expense or distraction to the firm." The Greenberg spokeswoman also said there are no pending criminal investigations involving Greenberg. The U.S. Attorney's Office does not comment on possible criminal investigations. Walfrido "Wally" Martinez, the firm-wide managing partner of Richmond, Va.-based Hunton, issued a brief written statement that "these proceedings will not adversely impact our clients." He added that Hunton & Williams "is not a party to these administrative proceedings" against Loumiet. But if a partner at a law firm is accused of misconduct, the law firm's reputation can be hurt, even if the partner committed the wrongful acts while working for a different firm, said Joseph E. Ankus of Ankus Consulting Inc., a legal recruiting firm based in Weston. "Let's face it, people see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear," he said. Hunton & Williams may be affected if the OCC gets its way and Loumiet is unable to represent banks. In general, if a partner gets barred from representing some clients, "by definition it will have an impact on that attorney's bottom line and that would flow over to firm profitability," Ankus said. Miami-based forensic accountant Stanley Foodman, who has worked with banks and federal agencies, said last week it is uncommon for federal banking regulators to discipline lawyers and law firms. But he said legal professionals fall under OCC jurisdiction when they provide counsel to banks. A spokeswoman for The Florida Bar said Loumiet had no public discipline history and no complaints closed in the past 12 months. Won More Bank Business Greenberg Traurig was retained in 2000 by the boards of directors and audit committees of Hamilton Bank and its holding company to investigate purported "loan swaps" in 1998 and determine whether the bank's officers -- including chairman and chief executive Eduardo Masferrer, president Juan Carlos Bernace and chief financial officer John Jacobs -- had lied to or misled the bank's external auditors, according to the notice of charges. The two reports for Hamilton Bank, which Loumiet co-authored with Grossman in November 2000 and March 2001, concluded that the bank did not attempt to conceal financial losses by engaging in an "adjusted price trade" in 1998. That was when it sold off risky Russian loans at a value that was substantially higher than the market price, and nearly simultaneously purchased equally risky Latin American loans at a face value that was also above the market price. The purported loan swap, which was not properly disclosed and helped conceal the bank's financial woes, resulted in the 2002 failure of the bank. Three of its top officers, including Masferrer, were later convicted. Masferrer was found guilty of federal fraud charges in May and sentenced to 30 years in prison. The takeover of Hamilton cost the FDIC $127 million, according to the OCC. But the Greenberg Traurig reports for the bank's boards and audit committees had concluded that the three bank officers had not done anything wrong. The OCC says that Loumiet and Greenberg Traurig placed the interests of Hamilton Bank below the interests of their other clients -- the bank's officers. The notice of charges also cites several conflicts of interest that allegedly caused Loumiet to breach his fiduciary duty to the bank, engage in unsound practices in putting together the reports and break at least two rules of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct that relate to conflict of interest. One alleged conflict of interest was Greenberg's and Loumiet's representation of Masferrer, Bernace and Jacobs in an OCC enforcement action and a class action lawsuit brought by shareholders. Both of those actions centered on the loan swaps. Regulators also point to Grossman's representation of the bank between 1998 and 2000 in relation to Hamilton's Securities and Exchange Commission filings. The OCC said those filings "did not disclose the adjusted price trades, or the losses that the Bank's officers sought to conceal through the adjusted price trades." While compiling the two reports, Loumiet "had an incentive not to conclude that the Bank had engaged in adjusted price trades, which would expose the material inaccuracy of the SEC filings," the notice of charges alleges. Greenberg and Loumiet, regulators allege, failed to erect a "firewall" to separate the law firm's interest in defending Masferrer and Jacobs in the federal class action suit from the firm's inquiry as to whether the two officers had lied to the bank's auditors, which was undertaken on behalf of the bank. Coston, Loumiet's lawyer, said Grossman, not his client, was Greenberg's principal relationship lawyer with Hamilton Bank and that his client's judgment was not clouded by promises of future business or a relationship with the bank's officers. He also said the OCC was informed that Greenberg Traurig had been Hamilton's counsel before the law firm drafted either of the reports in question. No Evidence of Fraud? Before submitting its second report in 2001, the OCC states in its charges against Loumiet that Greenberg Traurig had a letter from Hamilton Bank "confirming the adjusted price trades" -- some of which were made through an intermediary of London-based West Merchant Bank. It also had portions of testimony of a West Merchant employee "who had participated in the adjusted price trades" that was furnished by the OCC along with six "red flags." Still, Greenberg Traurig's March 14, 2001 report concluded that "when viewed in totality, the 'evidence' available to us is not convincing that Hamilton Bank intentionally engaged with [WMB] in a disguised 'swap' or 'exchange' in connection with the sale of Russian loans and purchase of Latin American assets, nor is such 'evidence' convincing that management at Hamilton Bank intentionally misled [its external auditors or the bank's audit committee] (or has demonstrated a lack of integrity) about these matters." In October and November, Greenberg Traurig and Grossman, while admitting no wrongdoing, agreed to consent orders, or settlements, of $750,000 and $175,000, respectively. "They settled so that they could resolve the matter without any further expense or distraction to the firm, and that's the judgment that Greenberg had to make for its own partners," Coston said. "But this matter is more than a distraction for Mr. Loumiet -- it's a direct assault on his sterling character and he ... will litigate aggressively and prove that the charges have no merit." The OCC's action is the latest embarrassment for Greenberg Traurig, the former home of convicted Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The firm has settled with several of Abramoff's former clients, but still faces a $32 million suit filed by the Coushattas Tribe in Louisiana. Both Loumiet and the OCC have filed various motions, and a hearing is scheduled for October 2007 before an administrative law judge in Miami. Loumiet's answer takes shots at the OCC. It cites a report compiled by the Office of Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury that it says was critical of OCC's oversight of Hamilton Bank between 1992 and 1997. Loumiet's answer states: "The OCC, having failed in its own regulatory duties, now looks to make Mr. Loumiet a scapegoat." NY Attorney Arrested for Encouraging Fraud By Mark Hamblett Southern District U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia and Martin Ficke, special agent-in-charge of the New York office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said in a statement that Mr. Gupta charged illegal immigrants between $1,500 to $3,000 to "prepare applications that he claimed would result in work permits, travel authorization, and/or legal residence." The complaint unsealed yesterday in Manhattan states that confidential informants were used in the probe - including a man and a woman who posed as a married couple and retained Mr. Gupta during a December 2005 meeting at his office at 44 Court Street in Brooklyn. Mr. Gupta faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison if convicted. Mr. Garcia said the investigation is continuing. NY
Partners Face Disbarment By Anthony Lin Lloyd Berns and Eugene Castro, who practiced together at Berns & Castro, paid a runner $500 for each of 65 cases referred to the firm. The runner had a network of employees at different hospitals he paid to give him information about patients who had been treated for injuries from accidents. He would then call the patients and solicit them on behalf of Berns & Castro. State law bars lawyers from paying referral fees to non-lawyers. Messrs. Berns and Castro, who collected a one-third contingent fee on settlements, filed false retainer statements with the Office of Court Administration, identifying fictitious persons as the source of their client referrals. Charged by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, they each pleaded guilty to one felony count of filing a false document and agreed to forfeit $75,000 in fees. They also face automatic disbarment following their felony convictions. Metro Lawyer Faces
Suspension By Charles Toutant When a client hesitated over paying his bill, Richard Ledingham threatened her with criminal prosecution for "theft of services" and he didn't stop there: He also warned that she might lose her business, her home and her professional license. Those actions — all to collect a fee judged to be exorbitant — are cause for suspending the River Vale solo from practice for three months, says New Jersey's Disciplinary Review Board.Despite an ethics committee's call for a reprimand and Ledingham's lack of prior discipline in 25 years of practice, the board sought suspension "insomuch as he threatened his client’s ruination in all aspects of her life, even including her ability to provide for her children." In its opinion issued Monday, In re Richard Ledingham, DRB 06-235, the board noted Ledingham’s failure to appear at the District IIA Ethics Committee hearing below, his lack of contrition and his attempt to collect "a grossly excessive fee." According to the opinion, Ledingham billed his client Karen Ferwerda $52,742 for representing her in the purchase of a Sylvan Learning Center franchise in December 2003. When Ferwerda retained him in June 2003, Ledingham agreed to send monthly invoices but never did do until the purchase closed. Ledingham’s work for Ferwerda was not extensive, the DRB found. He reviewed documents for a Small Business Administration loan for which she was approved but did not pursue. He reviewed a lease agreement but did not negotiate the terms. And he looked over the Sylvan franchise agreement, which was presented to her as a "take-it-or-leave-it" deal. Ledingham, also a certified public accountant, charged Ferwerda $175 an hour. But his charges included 47 hours for studying a four-page section of the Internal Revenue Code §197, which deals with amortization of intangibles. He spent 85 hours preparing an "operating agreement" and an "asset purchase agreement," but no such documents could be found, the DRB said. To complete a one-page IRS form SS-4, application for employer identification number and a two-page Form 2848, declaration of representative, Ledingham billed two-and-a-half hours. "Respondent's misconduct was hardly subtle," the DRB wrote. "With regard to the fee, he purportedly spent entire days, sometimes eight or nine hours per day, for several days in a row, apparently in ‘lockdown’ — researching, reviewing and negotiating issues that had little or no bearing on the substance of the transaction. Further, respondent presented nothing to substantiate the time charges underlying the bill. Nothing in the record refuted Ferwerda's compelling testimony that respondent's services should have been limited to review of the SBA loan documents, an unalterable lease agreement, and the franchise agreement, itself a non-negotiable contract." Ferwerda testified that she was "taken aback" to receive such a large bill from Ledingham. On Dec. 15, 2003, she first expressed her reservations to him by telephone. Four days later, he paid a surprise visit to her business to ask her to pay the bill. She wrote him two checks totaling $15,000 but indicated she didn’t enough in her account to pay the entire bill. He then asked her to write a check that he would not cash until she told him to, but when she declined, he refused to leave for more than 90 minutes. In January 2004, Ledingham twice phoned to request payment. Then, in a letter dated Feb. 16 of that year, he told her she was in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:20-8, which is titled "Theft of Services," and said he would contact the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office if she did not pay by March 10. In the letter, Ledingham said would notify Sylvan Learning Center of the "pending prosecution" and the company would likely revoke Ferwerda's franchise. He also said failure to pay the bill would create a "snowball effect" on her home mortgage once he notified her mortgage company of the outstanding debt. "Moreover, your license to teach in the state of New Jersey may be revoked or suspended upon notification. Most important of all, you have three children, and they need you as a wage earner for the future," Ledingham wrote. Ferwerda testified that when she first received the letter, she wasn’t sure whether criminal charges would apply and she became very worried that she would go to jail. "I basically had visions of my life disappearing," she said. But she also knew the bill was rife with questionable charges, and after consulting with another attorney she filed a fee arbitration claim. Ledingham’s "lengthy, meandering" answer was unsupported by documentation of the underlying transaction, the DRB found. He returned to Ferwerda her $15,000 after her fee arbitration was filed and forgave the remainder of the fee. But in doing so, he said he was entitled to the entire fee. He said he never intended to contact the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office, Sylvan Learning Centers or Ferwerda’s other business associates about the bill. The DRB upheld the District Ethics Committee’s findings that Ledingham violated RPC 1.5(a), charging excessive fees, and RPC 3.4(g), improperly threatening criminal prosecution to gain an advantage in a civil matter. The board was not moved by Ledingham’s testimony that his threats were idle. "The issue is not whether respondent intended to carry through with his threat, but the effect it could be expected to have, and did have, on his client. There can be no justification for subjecting one’s client to this kind of pressure," the DRB wrote. Ledingham, who was pro se in the disciplinary case, did not Military
Lawyer Who Worked in Bush Associated Press Col. Michael D. Murphy was most recently commander of the Air Force Legal Operations Agency at Bolling Air Force Base in Washington. He was the general counsel for the White House Military Office from December 2001 to January 2003, and from August 2003 to January 2005. In between those tours, he was the legal adviser to the reconstruction effort in Iraq, an Air Force spokesman said. He was relieved of his command at Bolling on Nov. 30 after the Air Force learned that he was disbarred for professional misconduct in Texas in 1984, according to Air Force Times. NY Associate
Suspended for Taking $2,000 "Fee" By Anthony Lin A former law firm associate who offered to provide information to an opposing party for a $2,000 fee has been suspended from the practice of law for five years. Glenn A. Kiczales, a former associate at landlord-tenant firm Ingram Yuzek Gainen Carroll & Bertolotti, began representing real estate firm Stahl Associates in 2002 in an action to recover an apartment from a tenant and a sublessee named Rajiv Gosain. Mr. Gosain offered at various points in the action to pay Mr. Kiczales, 36, for help in the case, including $20,000 in the event of a favorable settlement. Though Mr. Kiczales was unable to accept that fee because he was too junior a lawyer to influence his client on a settlement, he offered for a $2,000 fee to provide Mr. Gosain information about how certain audiotape evidence would be used. Mr. Gosain never paid the $2,000, though and his own lawyer subsequently reported Mr. Kiczales' conduct to partners at Ingram Yuzek. He was terminated immediately and the firm withdrew as counsel to Stahl Associates. In disciplinary proceedings, a remorseful Mr. Kiczales said he first decided to take payments because his wife had been angry about his loss of $1,500 gambling in Atlantic City. In ordering a five-year suspension, the Appellate Division, First Department, noted that, though Mr. Kiczales never actually received any money, his willingness to accept it "encompasses precisely the fear clients have that their attorneys will be 'bought off' by opposing counsel, or that their attorneys will use the clients' case to surreptitiously profit from the representations." Lying, Balky Client Opens Door for $670 Million Judgment By Matthew Hirsch A high-stakes battle between a Fremont, Calif.-based tech company and a Hong Kong investment firm is nearing a dramatic conclusion after a judge dropped the hammer on a key defendant for giving false testimony, and for skipping out on mandatory settlement talks. Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Jack Komar last week ordered terminating sanctions against Prediwave Corp. CEO Jianping "Tony" Qu, a rare punishment that effectively obliterates his defense arguments and rules in favor of the plaintiff. It will lead to a default judgment against Qu, Komar said in court. An attorney for plaintiff New World TMT of Hong Kong predicted the ruling will pave the way for a judgment of $670 million or more. "This is the supreme sanction a court could issue," said Dennis Ellis, a partner in the Los Angeles office of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker who represents New World. "It is refreshing to see [Komar] considered the motion seriously." Komar said in court that Qu admitted in a declaration that he had lied to the court earlier in at least two depositions. "There's no question that the testimony of Mr. Qu is very suspect as to the entirety of the case," Komar said, according to a transcript of the Nov. 21 hearing. But the judge said the main reason he decided to throw the book at Qu was because he missed a mandatory settlement conference in October. "He caused a great imposition on the court as well as on the plaintiffs in this case in direct disobedience of the court's order," Komar said. New World sued Prediwave for fraud in 2004, after having invested $291 million in the California company and agreeing to purchase $381 million in products. Prediwave allegedly agreed to supply video-on-demand equipment for cable television subscribers but was unable to deliver on its promise. Prediwave filed for bankruptcy earlier this year. A statement on Prediwave's Web site claims that its video-on-demand technology is "revolutionary," and attributes the legal dispute to "New World TMT's financial troubles, its own missteps in marketing Prediwave's new technology in China, and its desire to avoid contractual obligations to Prediwave." Defense lawyer Dan Schecter, who represented Prediwave and Qu, could not be reached on Thursday. But according to the court transcript, Schecter said his communication with Qu "is quite limited." At that time, he didn't dispute Komar's findings pertaining to Qu and asked to be withdrawn as counsel for the Prediwave executive. "There is no question we're dealing with serious allegations here and serious conduct as the court has found. I certainly have never seen it in my career," Schecter, a partner at Latham & Watkins' Los Angeles office, said in court. Komar scheduled another hearing for Monday, when the plaintiffs attorneys expect him to consider a similar ruling against Prediwave, given Qu's role, and related company defendants. Metro
Lawyer in Ethics Flap By Michael Booth A lawyer who switched places with his teenage son to cover up the son's involvement in a car accident should be censured, says New Jersey's Disciplinary Review Board. The ethics board found that Drew Kapur, of Duane Morris in Hamilton, violated RPC 8.4(b) by committing an act that reflects adversely on a lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness. Nevertheless, the misconduct was not deemed serious enough to warrant suspension from practice. According to the DRB's opinion, the one-car accident occurred on Oct. 16, 2005, around 3:20 a.m. Kapur's son, Craig, had driven into a light pole in a residential neighborhood near their Delran home, knocking the pole down. The son ran home to tell Kapur about the accident. Kapur dressed and rushed to the scene. Police arrived, having been alerted by a caller reporting the accident, who said the driver had fled. Kapur told an officer that he was the driver, that he had intended to go to a nearby convenience store and that he was returning home to get his wallet when he ran off the road. Asked whether he had left the scene, Kapur said he had run home to get the wallet and came back before the police got there. But other witnesses to the accident told police that the driver who fled was younger and dressed differently than Kapur. The officer, having doubts about Kapur's statement, asked him several more times if he was the driver and warned him that if he were covering for the actual driver, he would be charged with hindering apprehension. Kapur stuck to his story, and the officer issued him a number of traffic citations. Months later, Kapur became concerned about his misrepresentations and decided to tell the truth. He and his son retained counsel and, during a court appearance last Feb. 1, informed the town's police chief and prosecutor that the son was the driver. Kapur gave a full written confession and on April 24 pleaded guilty to volunteering false information to a law enforcement officer for the purpose of hindering the apprehension, prosecution, conviction or punishment of another. The municipal judge imposed $365 in fines and penalties. Disciplinary proceedings followed, and the Office of Attorney Ethics asked that Kapur receive a censure, a punishment stronger than a reprimand but less than a suspension from practice. The DRB agreed that Kapur's actions did not warrant a suspension, citing as mitigating factors his eventual confession, his contrition and remorse, and the absence of any personal gain on his part or injury to another person. However, Kapur deserved more than a reprimand because he had lied to police deliberately and with knowledge of the consequences and because he did not correct his wrongdoing immediately. Kapur might have gotten off with a slap on the wrist had he come forward immediately to confess the deception. In In re McGivney, DRB 01-060 (2002), the DRB recommended admonishment for a lawyer who signed his superior's name on an affidavit supporting a search warrant and admitted it the next day. In Kapur's case, two months had elapsed between the date of his misrepresentation and the first attempt to come forward. "It certainly was respondent's right to seek and retain counsel, but this did not relieve him of what should have been an obvious obligation to correct the record promptly," the DRB said. Kapur declined to comment. His attorney, Joel Korin, of the Voorhees office of Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, did not return a telephone call seeking comment by press time. Final discipline will be determined by the Supreme Court, which has not scheduled a hearing in the case, In the Matter of Drew Kapur, DRB 06-242. Lawyer's 'Lies' Sent Me to Bad Pa By Brad Hamilton A 16-year-old Manhattan student says a court-appointed lawyer badly botched her parents' custody case, convincing a judge to send her to an abusive father by falsely testifying about how she felt toward her mom. April Soler, who attends a prestigious Upper East Side private school on a scholarship for underprivileged kids, said lawyer Hal Silverman misrepresented her when he told a Family Court judge she was resentful about her mother's failed suicide try. "That was blatantly not true," said Soler, who claims Silverman, a senior member of the high-profile charity Lawyers for Children and a social worker with the group, never told the judge what she had made clear: that she wanted to live with her mother and she feared her dad's temper. In March 2004, Manhattan Family Court Judge George Jurow awarded custody to Soler's father, Pedro, the super of a building on West End Avenue, tearing April and her 10-year-old sister from their stay-at-home mom, Debora. On Feb. 21, 2005, the father was arrested for hurling a hunk of ham and a peanut butter jar at April. April was returned to her mother after her father's violent outburst. Debora had found work as a paralegal and moved into her own apartment in Spanish Harlem. But the mother and the siblings are still in court trying to get the younger sister, whose name they asked not to be used, back in her mom's custody. Soler's complaints are among several being leveled at Lawyers for Children, a not-for-profit group that gets $2.2 million a year from the state court system and $1.2 million more in private funds to help foster-care kids and those facing abuse or neglect. State Comptroller Alan Hevesi is looking into the group after legal eagle Raoul Felder and the National Organization for Women charged the agency has bungled cases and shown bias against women. Critics also say it misuses taxpayer money by taking on custody fights of the super-wealthy - including Judi Nathan and her former husband, Bruce; casino mogul John Aylsworth and his ex-girlfriend Bridget Marks; and a politically connected lawyer from Brooklyn, Thomas Gass, who has helped raise money for Supreme Court judges. Glenn Metsch-Ampel, executive director of Lawyers for Children, declined to discuss specific cases but conceded the group has represented "a handful" of rich parents. He stressed that it was up to judges to decide who should get their services. "We have a contract with the state, and we're fulfilling that obligation," he said. Hevesi's spokesman David Neustadt said: "We're concerned about that issue and are looking at the way we can most appropriately deal with it." April Soler is at a loss to explain what happened in her case. "My mother was accused of being an unfit mother and they asked what I thought. I told them she had been going through her own problems but the suicide attempt was a long time ago. I made it perfectly clear how I felt - I wanted to live with her. "Then they went to court and said I was distraught and I was resentful toward her because of the suicide." Lawyer for Children, founded in 1984 with offices on Lafayette Street in lower Manhattan, has a five-year, $14.4 million contract with the state to provide free legal advice and evaluations, primarily for foster-care kids whose cases come before city family courts. It often assumes the role of "law guardian," bound to watch out for the interests of children in the middle of custody battles. Judges assign its reps to any cases they deem appropriate. Felder says an audit is in order to unravel how the charity spends its money. "It's so murky - nobody can really explain it," he said. "It's an entity that doesn't have to account for its actions." Metsch-Ampel responded by saying, "We're bound to represent our clients' wishes and interests and we do that in all cases." Lawyer
Faces Disbarrment After Billing Client By Mike McKee When Janet Spitler thought federal prosecutors might be considering criminal charges against her in 2002, she retained Concord, Calif., lawyer Eric Conner. A year and a half later, Spitler had shelled out more than $90,000 in legal fees and other costs, even though -- as it turns out -- she was never under investigation for any crime. Now Conner is in trouble. Last week, State Bar Court Judge JoAnn Remke recommended that the 17-year attorney be disbarred for taking unconscionable fees and misappropriating Spitler's funds. She also chastised Conner for trying to hide his alleged crimes from the State Bar, and accused him of lying throughout the proceedings in State Bar Court. "The court's findings of fact are based in large part on credibility determinations," Remke wrote in a 25-page decision. "The court finds that respondent completely lacks credibility." The California Supreme Court will review the ruling and decide whether disbarment is deserved. On Friday, Conner, a graduate of the California Western School of Law in San Diego, seemed to have nothing but contempt for Remke's recommendation. He said the judge refused to admit court-certified documents that could have proven his innocence, and ignored his claims that the allegedly missing money is in a client trust fund in Lake County Superior Court. "It's really unfortunate that when I went to trial on this, I thought it was going to be a search for the truth, and it just has not been," Conner said. "It's been an effort to pigeonhole the particular things that the prosecutor wanted to prove, and the court turned a blind eye to anything that we said or did." He called the ruling "an unbelievable miscarriage of justice and abuse of discretion," and said he would appeal to the Supreme Court himself. According to the Oct. 31 ruling, Spitler retained Conner in April 2002 after Dennis Hunter -- an acquaintance with whom she had purchased three pieces of property in Lake County -- was arrested on money laundering and drug charges. Although she had nothing to do with Hunter's illegal activities, Spitler feared she might, nonetheless, be under investigation as a co-conspirator. Spitler entered into an agreement to pay Conner a $10,000 flat fee, the opinion notes, but agreed to up the fee to $30,000 at the lawyer's urging a few days later. Conner and Spitler arranged a meeting with a federal prosecutor and an investigator to discuss Spitler's involvement with Hunter, the court stated, and Spitler promised that any net proceeds from any sale of her property would be maintained in a trust fund pending any investigation by the federal government. Nevertheless, the ruling points out, during the next several months, Conner -- along with an assistant who conducted paralegal and general office work -- allegedly took thousands of dollars out of the trust fund for "outstanding legal fees" to defend Spitler against criminal charges that were never filed. In fact, San Francisco-based Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephanie Hinds told the State Bar Court that Spitler had never been the target of a criminal investigation, and that the government didn't pursue a forfeiture action against her properties. Lawyer Pleads Guilty to Ripping Off Clients for $800,000 By The Associated Press ATLANTA -- A North Georgia lawyer on Monday pleaded guilty to federal charges that he stole $800,000 from clients to pay his bills, make home repairs and cover his girlfriend's rent and utilities. According to the U.S. Attorney's Northern District Office, Charles Femery Peebles of Flowery Branch specialized in construction litigation and represented clients who suffered physical injury and property damage resulting from mold infestations in their homes. Federal prosecutors said Peebles, 56, would settle the cases without telling his clients, then forge his clients' signatures on the settlement checks and use the money to pay his own expenses. The settlements were intended to pay for the clients' home repairs and for medical treatment related to inhaling mold fibers. A grand jury indicted Peebles in May 2005 and charged him with nine counts of fraud and four counts of aggravated identity theft. He pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud and one count of aggravated identity theft. As part of his plea agreement, Peebles agreed to make full restitution to all his victims. To date, his former clients have recovered approximately $220,000 in settlement money. Peebles faces a maximum sentence of 22 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 on each count. A sentencing date has not been set. NY Lawyer
Pleads Guilty to By The Associated Press Campbell Holder, 58, of Brooklyn, admitted he stole the money by raiding the seven clients' accounts that he controlled, said Barbara Thompson, a spokeswoman of the Manhattan district attorney's office. Holder faces 3 1/2 to 10 years in prison when he is sentenced Jan. 3 in Manhattan's state Supreme Court by Acting Justice Brenda Soloff. The judge said the sentence imposed will depend on how much money Holder repays, Thompson said. Holder, who had law offices in lower Manhattan and was a U.S. citizen since 1991, was charged in July with grand larceny, scheme to defraud and forgery. A native of Barbados, most of his victims were his countrymen, prosecutors said. Holder prepared wills, trusts and estates and handled divorces, real estate and personal injury cases. In some cases he named himself executor of his clients' estates, and this gave him access to clients' funds, prosecutors said. An investigation revealed that from January 2002 to March 2006, Holder transferred $1,623,688 from his escrow account and client trust accounts to his own general business account, prosecutors said. Holder faced up to 15 years in prison on each second-degree grand larceny count if he had been convicted after trial. Dead-slow Lawyers By Dareh Gregorian
"It's unbelievable," Margherita Merola said of Silver & Santo's actions - and inaction - in the suit she thought she had had filed in Staten Island on behalf of her late son, Anthony. "I feel violated. I completely trusted them." Her new lawyer, Ravi Batra,
says in court papers that her trust was completely misplaced. He
says the firm GEORGE SILVER
apparently tried to con
the heartbroken Staten Island The firm broke up in 2002. Steven Santo could not be reached for comment, and George Silver, who was elected a Manhattan Civil Court judge in 2004, did not return calls. Their lawyer, Mark Housman, called Merola's legal-malpractice suit "quite frivolous" and predicted it would be thrown out. ANTHONY MAGRO
Merola's legal ordeal
dates back to 1998, when her In early 2002, frustrated that Santo had stopped returning her calls, she said, she demanded his firm send her a copy of her $40 million lawsuit, which she'd never seen. She was faxed a copy of the suit she'd been told was filed on in March of 2001 on Feb. 6, 2002. But she said Santo still wouldn't return her calls, and a fed-up Merola hired Batra in 2003. He told her Santo's firm had committed malpractice by waiting too long to file suit - the statute of limitations had run out on the wrongful-death claim in November 2000. Batra said he ran into the same roadblocks Merola had when he asked to see her file. Finally, in January 2004, Batra was sent a copy of the suit, which was signed by Santo. The copy sent to Batra had the same courthouse-issued file number as the one Merola says she was given in February 2002, but with the year changed from 2001 to 2002. Richmond County court records also show no evidence her case was ever filed in any year. No suit by Merola was ever served upon Ford or Firestone. "It was all baloney," said Merola, 55. Santo and Silver's lawyer said he did not know why there was no record of the case. The firm maintains in court papers that the suit was indeed filed in 2002, and that the earlier version that was sent to Merola was just a draft. Panel
Wants Lawyers Disbarred By Charles A. Radin The state Board of Bar Overseers has recommended that the Supreme Judicial Court disbar two lawyers accused of using extortion and intimidation in an attempt to discredit a judge, who had ruled against their client in a family feud over assets of the Demoulas Supermarkets chain. The board recommended the suspension of a third lawyer. In its decision, the board affirmed the May 2005 recommendation of a hearing officer that Gary C. Crossen and Kevin P. Curry be disbarred, but it softened the penalty recommended for Richard K. Donahue , another lawyer accused in the case, from disbarment to a three-year suspension because Donahue was the last to join in the scheme aimed at a law clerk and because he participated in the planning but not the execution of the effort. The case will now go before a single Supreme Judicial Court who could send it to the full court. Donahue is a former chairman of the Board of Bar Overseers, a former assistant to President Kennedy, and a onetime president of Nike Inc. Curry is a former state prosecutor. Crossen is a former federal and Suffolk County prosecutor, former chairman of the state Judicial Nominating Commission, and former ethics counsel to Governors William F. Weld and Paul Cellucci. Crossen's attorney, Thomas Kiley , yesterday vowed to continue fighting until Crossen is exonerated. "It is over nine years since this investigation began," Kiley said. "If it takes nine years to say something is wrong, it is not so clear it is wrong. We have maintained Gary's innocence under the rules applicable to lawyers from the outset. We are deeply disappointed that the majority of the board didn't see it our way. We will continue to battle until he is totally vindicated." The disciplinary case against the three lawyers stems from actions they allegedly took in 1997, two years after Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Maria Lopez ruled that the heirs of George Demoulas, a cofounder of the $1.5 billion chain, had been cheated out of millions of dollars by other members of their family. Lopez ordered a massive transfer of assets. The lawyers, who all worked at various times for the losing side in the case, engaged in an elaborate scheme to get information from Lopez's law clerk, Paul Walsh, to provide information that would allow them to discredit Lopez and invalidate the judgment, hearing officer M. Ellen Carpenter wrote in her May report. The men first enticed Walsh with a bogus offer of a dream job, then threatened to harm his career if he did not cooperate with them, Carpenter concluded after lengthy hearings. The lawyers contended that Lopez was biased against their client and that they were only trying to extract evidence from Walsh. The three accused men and their lawyers disputed the findings of fact and the penalties recommended by Carpenter to the Board of Bar Overseers. The three lawyers, Carpenter wrote in her report, "have left what one can only hope is not an indelible impression that lawyers, even very prominent ones, will do almost anything to prevail if enough money is at stake and available for their use." Kiley had called Carpenter's findings the work of "a hearing officer with righteous hindsight." The overseers held hearings on the matter in January and February. A 79-page memorandum of their findings and recommendations, issued Oct. 16, endorsed Carpenter's findings unanimously except for divisions on recommendations for Crossen and Donahue. The vote to disbar Crossen was 9 to 2 and Donahue's three-year suspension was approved, 7 to 4. In their approval, the overseers repeat the hearing officer's characterization of the lawyers' approach to Walsh as repellent, and noted that "Crossen and Donahue had no compunction about continuing a cruel ruse and then callously attempting" threats and intimidation to make the clerk cooperate with them. None of the accused or other lawyers involved returned calls for comment. Jonathan Saltzman of the Globe staff contributed to this report. Metro Lawyer Who Billed $1,500 Per Hour Fights Ethics Charge By Douglas S. Malan Greenwich divorce lawyer Gary I. Cohen is among the state's priciest attorneys. But requiring his client pay him an additional $300,000 "bonus," for a highly contentious five-day divorce mediation in Chicago, effectively ratcheted up his already considerable rate to an out-of-this-world $1,511 an hour, Connecticut disciplinary authorities contend. In a grievance proceeding that got underway Oct. 12, the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel is urging Cohen be presented in Superior Court for appropriate discipline, for allegedly coercing his client into paying an unreasonably excessive fee.The grievance stems from a divorce action in which Cohen represented Redding real estate developer Gary Zimmerman. The $300,000 bonus secured by Cohen prompted Zimmerman to sue Cohen in federal court for economic damages. That suit resulted in a February 2005 judgment for Zimmerman in the amount of $370,982. Zimmerman's grievance led to a probable cause finding that Cohen, a matrimonial lawyer with a clean disciplinary history in his 38 years of practice, violated Rules 1.5(a) and 4.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. A three-member reviewing panel of the Statewide Grievance Committee began hearing the case on Oct. 12 and continued it until an undetermined date. Chief Disciplinary Counsel Mark A. Dubois said he hopes to finish arguing the case to the reviewing panel by the end of December. "I'm saddened beyond description" by this grievance, said Cohen, who noted that he will present experts during the hearing who will help prove the amount of his bonus was fair and justified. That's hardly the view of nationally renowned legal ethics expert Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr. During Cohen's federal trial, Hazard described the bonus as "outrageous" and "improper." Cohen's alleged violations of Rule 1.5 hinge on the provision that "a lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses" based on factors such as "[t]he time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly." Rule 4.1 prohibits lawyers from making "a false statement of material fact or law to a third person," which disciplinary authorities contend Cohen did when he reported his bonus to the Internal Revenue Service. In the marital separation agreement, Cohen characterized the bonus as payment for tax advice, but a letter drafted by Cohen and sent to Zimmerman stated that Cohen was providing no tax planning service. The bonus in question came from a $1 million bank account that the Zimmerman and his estranged wife, Joan, agreed to split, from a marital estate valued at more than $100 million. Cohen's fee agreement with Gary Zimmerman stated that, beyond hourly charges, "we may request an additional reasonable charge for matters of extraordinary difficulty, or which require special expertise or the giving of special priority treatment." The additional charge is "subject to your approval after discussion with you," the agreement stated. "It cannot be imposed unless you agree to it." Zimmerman, who retained Cohen on Aug. 8, 2000, testified during the trial in his federal suit against Cohen that he objected to the bonus. But Cohen, Zimmerman alleged, forced him to wire $300,000 to both Cohen and Joan Zimmerman's legal counsel David I. Grund, of Chicago's Grund & Leavitt, near the end of the mediation period by threatening to walk out of the mediation discussions. Gary Zimmerman, now a Nevada resident, faced a far more costly community property asset distribution if a settlement wasn't worked out and he had to litigate the divorce case in Nevada. Cohen worked for Zimmerman on his Connecticut divorce, and also represented him, with the assistance of local counsel, in a parallel Nevada divorce filed by Joan Zimmerman. 'Remarkably Demanding' Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Frank Blando calculated Cohen's fee scale based on evidence Cohen submitted during the federal trial. Blando determined that Cohen's team, which included attorney Marci E. Finkelstein and three paralegals, worked slightly more than 281 hours on Zimmerman's behalf and, with expenses, was due $124,309, based on Cohen's $450-per-hour rate for responsibilities he handled alone. But with the bonus included, his hourly rate more than tripled, Blando determined. Dubois concluded that Cohen's time spent on the case failed to justify the bonus. "[T]he Chicago mediation developed into an opportunity for Cohen to extort additional fees for both him and Grund," Dubois wrote in his Sept. 20, 2006, pre-hearing memorandum. He added that Zimmerman "was forced to agree to pay it because Cohen threatened to abandon him and call off mediation." Cohen's lawyer is Katherine C. Callahan, chairwoman of Hartford-based Updike, Kelly & Spellacy's litigation department. Callahan replied strongly to Dubois in her pre-hearing memorandum dated Oct. 5, arguing that Cohen earned the bonus despite his relatively brief assignment for Zimmerman. Callahan pointed toward Cohen's ability to keep Zimmerman's $30 million business, Zimmerman Properties Inc., in his possession, which was Zimmerman's primary focus in the divorce proceedings. Allowing Gary Zimmerman to retain ownership of the company's stock was "a concession that Mrs. Zimmerman had refused to make until well into mediation," Callahan stated. Callahan also refuted Dubois's claim that Cohen was prepared to abandon Zimmerman, pointing out that Zimmerman threatened to end his relationship with Nevada counsel because of the lawyer's perceived inadequacies. "[G]iven Mr. Zimmerman's history of threatening to cashier his lawyers," Callahan continued, "it is more than likely that it was Mr. Zimmerman who wanted to abandon Attorney Cohen and not vice versa." Callahan further argued that Cohen earned his bonus because Zimmerman, who also is a lawyer, "was a remarkably demanding client and vigorously monitored even the minutiae of the litigation." Attorney
Says More Clients Bilked out of $500,000
By Jose Cassola Stephen Hill Nelson, a partner with the now defunct Nelson & Freedlander, surrendered to Sweetwater police on Thursday and was charged with grand theft and money laundering. Nicole Freedlander said through her attorney, Andrew Berman, that churro vendor Felino Ramirez, 76, was one of four clients, numerous lawyers and medical providers who also may have been scammed out of settlement monies, attorney referral fees and other income. ''My client is innocent and had no idea what was happening,'' Berman said. Berman refused to show The Miami Herald the bookkeeping records of Nelson & Freedlander. But according to Berman, the breakdown of the $500,000 was like this: • About $200,000 is owed to at least four clients, including Ramirez, who is owed $118,000 from a medical malpractice settlement awarded in June. • At least $300,000 belongs to medical providers and lawyers seeking attorney fees, including Freedlander. Berman said Freedlander, a trial lawyer, wasn't Nelson's partner but a long-term associate, whose name is listed in the firm's title to make it look larger. ''My client foolishly allowed her name to be used under the firm's label when she has no partnership interests,'' Berman said. ``In terms of lost dollars, she is also a victim, as well as other lawyers who were apparently stiffed [by Nelson] on other cases.'' Berman said Freedlander handled the Ramirez case and that she turned in the money to Nelson. Nelson, in turn, was supposed to deposit the money into the firm's trust account and disburse the shares to the appropriate parties. But he never did that. Berman said Freedlander noticed something was amiss when Nelson would not answer her phone calls regarding Ramirez and other clients' settlements. ''It was only when my client realized what was going on that she went before the Bar herself,'' Berman said. As of Friday evening, Nelson was still behind bars on charges of grand theft of more than $100,000, 10 counts of money laundering and forgery of a check. His attorneys, John A. Weiss of Tallahassee and A.P. Walter Jr. of Coral Gables, could not be reached. Ramirez, meanwhile, plans to continue selling his churros out of the Sedano's Supermarket shopping center off West Flagler Street and Southwest 107th Avenue until he finally sees his money. ''I guess I have to keep waiting patiently, but at least now there is a light at the end of the tunnel,'' he said. So imagine how unlucky the 76-year-old vendor felt after he broke his ankle and says he got bilked out of $118,000 by an attorney hired to represent him. Ramirez began to see his unfortunate series of events turn around Thursday afternoon when one of his lawyers, Stephen Hill Nelson, turned himself in to Sweetwater police. Nelson, 55, a partner with Nelson & Freedlander in Miami, was charged with grand theft of more than $100,000, money laundering and forging a check. The charges stem from an investigation into the disappearance of a $245,000 settlement awarded to Ramirez in June for a medical malpractice lawsuit. Of the settlement money, Nelson's firm was supposed to take about $127,000 -- slightly more than half of the settlement -- to cover attorney fees, and Ramirez would get the remaining $118,000. Nicole Freedlander, Nelson's law partner, handled the bulk of the legal work, and Nelson took over once the money came in, Ramirez said. But months passed, and Ramirez didn't get any of the money, so he called police. ''I am an old man. How could he do this to me?'' Ramirez said. ``At least I'm finally beginning to see justice.'' Ramirez's ordeal started when he fell from a coconut tree in July 2002. Ramirez sells fresh coconut juice and lemonade to supplement his churros business near 107th Avenue and Flagler Street. Ramirez underwent surgery on his fractured right ankle at Kendall Regional Medical Center, but complications forced him to have another operation, according to his stepdaughter, Cristy Campaneria. In August 2004, Ramirez hired Nelson's firm to sue the hospital and Dr. Mark Sturge, the podiatrist who first operated on him. Ramirez claimed an orthopedic surgeon should have been present during the procedure. All parties agreed to the $245,000 settlement, and the lawsuit was dismissed this year, records show. Ramirez, who walks with a limp, was ready to retire with his settlement money. But he still hasn't seen a dime. Today, Ramirez is still selling his churros -- sticks of dough fried in oil and coated with cinnamon sugar -- at $1 for a bag of 10. At his 60-bags-a-day pace, it will take Ramirez about 5 ½ years -- working seven days a week -- to make back his $118,000. ''This poor elderly gentleman doesn't need to be selling churros in the streets and under the hot sun when he has thousands of dollars owed to him,'' said Sweetwater Detective William Garcia. Police searched for Nelson at seven different locations before he made arrangements to turn himself in this week. Nelson and his attorney declined to comment Thursday at the Sweetwater police station. Campaneria notified the Florida Bar of Nelson's alleged actions. Nelson agreed to permanent disbarment on Sept. 25, records show. In a disbarment consent filed with the Florida Supreme Court, lawyers for the Florida Bar wrote that Nelson confirmed he ``received client trust funds which he failed to preserve and/or disburse as required by the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar.'' Nelson promised the court he would stop representing any clients and would notify all his clients of his disbarment by next week. Investigators are looking into allegations that Nelson stole money from two other people, said Sweetwater Police Chief Roberto Fulgueira. They also are trying to determine whether Freedlander had any involvement in possible wrongdoing. Fulgueira said he hopes Ramirez's money will be returned. Added the police chief: ``Our job is not over until we get this victim all of his money back.''
"HighFlying"
Metro Lawyer Disbarred By Michael Booth A once high-flying Middlesex County litigator who used client funds to sustain gambling and substance addictions has been ousted permanently from practice. Neither A. Kenneth Weiner nor any lawyer showed up last Tuesday at the state Supreme Court when the Office of Attorney Ethics sought his disbarment. "He performed little or no service, and then he abandoned his clients," OAE Counsel Melissa Czartoryski said. "Mr. Weiner is unfit to practice law." The Court ordered disbarment on the day of the hearing, In the Matter of A. Kenneth Weiner, A-77-05. Weiner, an East Brunswick personal injury and criminal defense lawyer who once generated éclat with headliner cases, accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in retainers and then failed to do the work. The Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection has paid out $224,432 to 33 of his clients. Between June and August 2004, eight former clients signed criminal complaints in East Brunswick Municipal Court, prompting a county investigation. In September 2004, a former associate, Jeffrey Lichtenstein, pleaded guilty to stealing from the firm and was sentenced to three years' probation. That month, Weiner was suspended from law practice. In September 2005, Weiner was indicted on multiple counts of theft by deception. Last June, he pleaded guilty to two counts, admitting during the plea allocution that he was addicted to alcohol, drugs and gambling. He stated in a Chapter 11 petition that he won and then lost $3 million at Atlantic City and Las Vegas casinos and that he owed $140,000 to the casinos and $600,000 in taxes. Weiner agreed to pay two clients $54,000 in restitution and is serving a four-year probationary term. Weiner gained national recognition in 1990 representing "car baby mom" Chante Fernandez, who was arrested for leaving her daughter locked in her car at the Woodbridge Center mall while she worked an eight-hour shift. Weiner turned the case into a crusade for single working mothers with limited child-care options. Weiner also represented Judith Sapsa, who had been charged with stealing $100,000 of inheritance money from her brother, convicted killer Robert Zarinsky. She subsequently told authorities Zarinsky was involved in the fatal shooting of a Rahway policeman in 1958. Zarinsky, who killed a teenager in 1969, was acquitted in 2001 of murdering the officer. Weiner had a prior ethics brush in July 1995, when the Court reprimanded him for over-delegating authority to staff and allowing staff to sign clients' names to documents. The DRB found that Weiner kept insufficient records and inadequately supervised his secretary. For prior articles CLICK HERE |
Document | Miami attorney Stephen Nelson's disbarment|
A Feast
|
