Posted on 09/10/2001 3:39:07 PM PDT by freedomnews
Clinton lawyer suspended for misusing funds
Monday, September 10, 2001
By Matthew Bruun
Telegram & Gazette Staff
CLINTON-- A Clinton lawyer's license has been suspended indefinitely by the state Board of Bar Overseers for misappropriation of thousands of dollars in client funds. James A. Gibbons, who practiced law at 97 Walnut St., also presented false documents to overseers when confronted with allegations of financial impropriety earlier this year, according to the board.
Mr. Gibbons was a co-chairman of Clinton's 150th Anniversary Committee and is a member of the Council on Aging.
The Board of Bar Overseers of the Supreme Judicial Court, in a statement issued Friday, described eight incidents in which clients' money was “wrongly expended.” The sums ranged from $23,000 to more than $240,000. Half of the amounts were more than $100,000.
None of the clients themselves ever complained, and Mr. Gibbons paid restitution to all of them, the board's report said.
“During a period of great personal stress and difficulty I made some unfortunate mistakes in judgment, which I deeply regret. These matters are all fully rectified and I certainly do hope somehow to be able to continue my efforts helping people in my community in the future,” Mr. Gibbons said last night.
Mr. Gibbons had no previous cases of discipline from the board, which voted July 9 to recommend the license suspension to the SJC. On Aug. 2, the court ordered the suspension.
The case was brought to investigators' attention in February 1999, when two checks from Mr. Gibbons' Interest on Lawyers' Trust Account bounced.
The IOLTA program is mandated by the SJC, requiring lawyers and law firms to establish interest-bearing accounts for low-amount or short-term client deposits, according to the Massachusetts IOLTA Committee. Committee members are appointed by the SJC.
Interest earned on those accounts is used to support law-related public service programs.
Each of the eight incidents cited by the Board of Bar Overseers involved Mr. Gibbons expending money from his IOLTA account without the knowledge or consent of his clients. The board gave the following account in its report:
In the first case, from December 1998, $23,000 was deposited from a settlement. By the end of the month, all but $292.37 had been spent.
Once the investigation began, Mr. Gibbons falsely told investigators his client had been paid with personal money, and produced a receipt for $14,574.51 signed by his client. The client, however, said she had never been paid.
The largest cases involved real estate deals. On March 23 and May 1, 1998, Mr. Gibbons deposited $159,708.91 into the IOLTA account.
“Without the knowledge or consent of any of the parties, the respondent intentionally expended most of the proceeds for his own business or personal purposes or those of other clients,” the report said. “By May 27, 1998, the balance in the IOLTA account was reduced to $26,139.15, with only $59,543.93 having been disbursed on account of this closing.”
A month later, Mr. Gibbons took more than $100,000 from the IOLTA account to pay off the seller's mortgage. “He was able to make this payment only by converting funds received for other closings or clients in May of 1998,” the report said.
In November 1998, he deposited $240,929.51. “By December 30, 1998, the balance in the IOLTA account was reduced to $292.37, with only $99,018.29 having been disbursed on account of this closing,” the report said. A payment of $150,641.71 followed in February, again by the conversion of money funds from other closings or clients that month, the report said.
“In all of the above matters, the respondent's intentional misappropriation of client funds, with intent to deprive the clients or others of the funds at least temporarily and with actual deprivation resulting,” represents a violation of rules of professional conduct, the board said.
“In addition, in the first matter, the respondent's settlement of the client's claim with advising her that he had done so or that settlement funds had been received on her behalf was also conduct in violation” of those rules, as was his misrepresentation to investigators that the client had been paid, the board concluded.
Well...maybe not.......hehehe
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.