| In the Matter of Quinn, (Review Dept. 1997) ___ Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. ___ (92-C-18398). Respondent seeks review of a hearing judge's recommendation that he be disbarred for his conviction of embezzlement, a crime involving moral turpitude per se . In May 1992, Respondent was arrested and charged with two separate and unrelated felony counts of grand theft. Under counts one and two, respectively, he was charged with embezzling a net sum of $217,594.38 from a trust and with taking $35,000 from a client. In September 1992, under a plea agreement, Respondent was convicted on a no contest plea to count one and count two was dismissed. Effective April 17, 1993, Respondent was placed on interim suspension because the crime of which he was convicted involved moral turpitude per se. In 1987 Respondent began experiencing severe financial difficulties because of his recent divorce and expensive lifestyle. Even though he was earning somewhere between $125,000 to $140,000 a year, his financial difficulties continued to worsen in 1988 and 1989. In the summer of 1989, Respondent took over as the sole trustee of the Dykeman trust at the request of Ms. Dykeman, whose family established the trust to pay for her care since she suffered from mental disabilities. When Respondent took over as trustee in June 1989, the cash balance in the trust was $271,880.45. Almost immediately after he became trustee, Respondent began embezzling money from the trust to finance his extravagant life style. It was not long before Ms. Dykeman began having difficulty getting the money she needed for her medication and for her and her husband's living essentials. Between his appointment as trustee in June 1989 and October 1990, Respondent improperly withdrew a total of $247,844.38 from the trust for his own use by committing no less than 51 separate acts of embezzlement. Respondent admits to drafting fake promissory notes payable to Ms. Dykeman's trust and giving them to his counsel to give to the State Bar during its investigation of his misconduct. Subsequently, Ms. Dykeman filed a lawsuit against Respondent for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, fraud, and professional negligence. Respondent eventually settled the lawsuit by stipulating to a $750,000 judgment in favor of Ms. Dykeman. In accordance with his criminal plea agreement, he made restitution payments totaling $302,464.84 to Ms. Dykeman and the Client Security Fund. In late summer of 1987, Respondent had Daniel Zipser, who at the time was one of Respondent's law partners, ask Maurice Morris to make a short term loan to Respondent. Morris, who was a client at Respondent's and Zipser's law firm, agreed to lend and did lend Respondent $50,000, with Respondent executing an unsecured promissory note payable to Morris. Over the next couple of years Respondent continued to borrow more and more money from Morris, which loans were unfair, secured by unrecorded deeds of trust, and surrounded by acts of dishonesty and misrepresentation by Respondent. After Respondent defaulted on the final notes given to Morris, Morris sued Respondent to cover on the notes. After spending more than $22,000 in attorney's fees and after a three or four-day civil trial, Morris obtained a judgment against Respondent on the notes. However, a few weeks after trial, Respondent filed for bankruptcy. Thereafter, Morris filed a petition in to have his judgment against Respondent declared nondischargeable, which petition the court granted. Even though Respondent's plea agreement required him to pay Morris only $35,000 in restitution, Respondent made payments totaling $135,000 to Morris and the Client Security Fund. In aggravation, the Court found the following circumstances in connection with the embezzlement matter: multiple acts of misconduct; concealment and dishonesty; refusal to account. In connection with the Morris matter, the following aggravating circumstances were found: improper business transaction with a client; misrepresentations; lack of insight; unauthorized practice of law while on interim suspension. In mitigation the Court found no prior record; cooperation; restitution. The Court rejected Respondent's contention that the hearing judge erred in giving him only limited credit for the testimony of his many character witnesses, finding that Respondent did not fulfill his burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that each of his witnesses was aware of the full extent of his crimes and other misconduct, but even so still held a high opinion of him. Likewise, the Court rejected Respondent's assertion that the hearing judge erred in not giving his community service adequate weight, agreeing that Respondent's volunteer involvement with the Happy Harrison Youth Foundation was greater than what was required under the terms of his criminal probation. The Court also rejected Respondent's contention that his financial problems were beyond his control because they were the results of mental difficulties. Respondent's psychological expert did not testify that Respondent was suffering from any mental disorder at the time the misconduct occurred. He merely explained that Respondent exhibited an extraordinary drive for success and a higher than normal fear of failure. The Court concluded that Respondent's psychological problems do not mitigate his 51 separate acts of embezzlement. Finding no compelling mitigating circumstances, but substantial aggravating circumstances, the Court adopted the hearing judge's recommendation for disbarment, but deleted the recommendation that Respondent be ordered to give notice of his ineligibility to practice law, as Respondent had been required to do so when placed on interim suspension and he had not returned to the practice of law. |
