In the Matter of Reiss: Case Summary

Facts:

Attorney James Vincent Reiss faced disbarment for extensive ethical misconduct across six client matters from 2000 to 2010. He took client money through false pretenses, forged documents, made significant client loans without the specific proper consent, and performed many cases of fraud. The legal court was heavily focused on Reiss’s lack of respect, his deceit, and a gross amount of unethical practice.

Procedural History:

The State Bar’s Office of the Chief Trial Counsel initiated the disciplinary proceedings. Following a trial, the hearing judge, Richard A. Honn, found Reiss culpable on all counts and recommended disbarment. Reiss sought review. On October 3rd, 2012, the recommendation was upheld by the high court.

Chambers, Reiss advanced to the Chambers a total of $20,100 in two loans against her anticipated monetary recovery. However, she never received funds.

Grizzle and Dumont sought information from Reiss about the status of their cases to not avail the parties. With more than 30 requests to contact Reiss, neither has contacted the parties.

The attorney also committed a misrepresentation. That his client lost out for the matters.

Rules Broken:

• Business and Professions Code Section 6106: Moral turpitude, corruption, dishonesty, and other acts that affect his practice.
• Business and Professions Code Section 6068(i): Failure to cooperate in disciplinary proceedings.
• Rules of Professional Conduct (multiple rules): Reiss also broke several additional rules: Failure to provide documentation and Improper conduct.

Defenses Used:

Reiss contended he only erred in one count (improperly loaning money) and requested a 90-day suspension. As stated above, the courts heavily found against these defenses that were unconvincing in the eyes of the law.

Holding/Punishment:

The Review Department affirmed the hearing judge’s recommendation of disbarment. The Review Department heavily stated that “he did not show profound honesty and integrity that served to create pillars and for the community”. He will also lose his certifications.

Aggravating Factors:

• Multiple acts of misconduct which are over 10 years.
• A number of harmful effects was focused on the integrity of this case.
• A clear lack of remorse

Mitigating Factors:

• Limited to a limited amount of service and lack of being able to know what was happening during this time.