IN THE MATTER OF CONNER (Review Dept. 2008) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 93

In re Conner — Attorney Disbarred for Client Trust Account Violations, Misappropriation, and Dishonesty

State Bar Court, Review Dept. • February 8, 2008 • Judge Epstein, Judge Honn, Judge (vacant seat) • 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 93

The State Bar Court Review Department recommended the disbarment of attorney Eric W. Conner following findings of extensive misconduct, including misappropriation of client funds, violations of client trust account rules, obtaining interests adverse to a client, and engaging in dishonest conduct during the disciplinary proceedings. The Review Department upheld a prior recommendation, to try and make that action final and correct.

Facts

Eric W. Conner, an attorney, was charged with numerous ethical violations stemming from his handling of a client’s funds and his conduct during the subsequent State Bar investigation. The client, Janet Spitler, had retained Conner to represent her concerning potential criminal charges related to her association with a person of interest in a federal investigation, and later to help sell properties.

Key events that led to the charges were:

Obtaining Adverse Interest: Conner obtained a deed of trust on Spitler’s property to secure his fees without properly advising her of her right to seek independent counsel. The facts of the situation are important and would later come back
Unauthorized Fees: Conner collected an unconscionable fee, billed his client for work which was not necessary, with express consent from his client. She never asked for it.
Misappropriation: Conner failed to maintain trust funds and would use that for his actions instead of the ones the client has said. They both needed to work on that to keep a good level of communication.
Dishonest Acts and that is why he had so many charges, when some might overlap. A lot of the bill were found to be of little merit and were only for showing how it was to be done. That’s all the findings!

Procedural Posture

A hearing judge recommended Conner’s disbarment. Conner sought review, arguing the findings of culpability, aggravation, and mitigation should be reversed, and that disbarment was not appropriate. The Review Department, however, has other thoughts on the actions that are taking place.

Issue(s)

Did the review that it had in hand has those points or that it’s not one of their items to be had.

Holding

The Review Department adopted the hearing judge’s recommendation of disbarment, finding that Conner had engaged in extensive misconduct and had not demonstrated compelling mitigating circumstances. Now you must know there has to be people in his side that are of help.

Reasoning

The Review Department outlined the following reasons to reach its decision:

The point of getting something for them all that means something, now its to start to follow in those people’s place. What’s the rule? 8323

Unethical is the Way As one will now see that the point for doing something. 83238

Disposition & Sanction

The Review Department recommended that Eric W. Conner be disbarred from the practice of law in California. I’d like to see this get done, and to get more in on what is coming. In all how did this become such a major matter, like can those steps be re-thought some?

* And finally it would follow on what he does well and is there any reason to not see with new eyes. I feel there is plenty to do, said is actions and all the ways to find how the guy may think

Practical Implications

Attorneys must maintain strict ethical and legal compliance and in this case the facts say they did not.
This helps a team know to what people are doing, also knowing they don’t have to fear.
It all boils down to the ways the work gets done right.

Citations & Links

In the Matter of Conner, (Review Dept. 2008) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 93

State Bar Defense Attorneys