Facts

Daye Shinn, admitted to the bar in 1961, represented client Oscar Dane in an eminent domain action brought by the City of Santa Monica. The court awarded Dane $198,623.48 in 1979, which Shinn was ordered to hold in trust for his client. Instead, between 1979 and 1985, Shinn misappropriated large portions of the funds, commingled them with personal and other clients’ money, and delayed restitution for five years. When pressed, he returned only $178,287.93 — less than the original principal — and provided no meaningful accounting.

Shinn had already been suspended in 1987 for earlier trust account violations involving another eminent domain client, where he commingled over $100,000. Despite this, he again engaged in similar conduct, concealing withdrawals through multiple trust accounts, cashier’s checks, and certificates of deposit. He later admitted to misleading a State Bar investigator about the balance in his trust account.

Additionally, in 1984 Shinn filed and prosecuted a civil lawsuit in his client’s name without authorization, seeking interest on a stolen check related to the eminent domain proceeds. Even after learning that the client did not want him to act, Shinn continued to appear as counsel of record for five years, failing to withdraw.

Findings and Discussion

The Review Department upheld findings that Shinn committed multiple acts of moral turpitude and violated his fiduciary duties. He misappropriated at least $90,000 in client funds, failed to maintain a proper trust account, and did not render an accounting. His claim that fee agreements had been orally modified to justify taking the funds was rejected as incredible and unsupported by evidence. His conduct showed a “complete disregard for fiduciary and trust obligations.”

The court also found that Shinn appeared in court and waived key client rights without consent during the eminent domain trial, including trial by jury, the presence of a court reporter, and the right to appeal — demonstrating incompetence and neglect under former Rule 6-101(A)(2). His subsequent unauthorized lawsuit compounded the violations, showing indifference to his client’s interests and to his professional responsibilities.

Although six character witnesses attested to Shinn’s honesty, most were co-workers and their testimony carried little weight. The Review Department emphasized that the mitigating evidence was outweighed by substantial aggravation — including prior discipline, multiple acts, lack of candor, and harm to the client.

Sanctions Table

Holding and Significance

The Review Department held that disbarment is the only appropriate sanction for deliberate and prolonged misappropriation of large client funds combined with dishonesty and incompetence. The case underscores that restitution does not excuse misappropriation and that attorneys must maintain strict fiduciary integrity. The ruling also clarified that delay or failure to consolidate related cases does not mitigate discipline when misconduct is egregious and ongoing.

Tags