In the Matter of Lantz
The Review Department affirmed discipline after finding an attorney engaged in multiple acts of professional misconduct across four client matters, including misappropriation through gross neglect, charging illegal fees, incompetence, and failure to properly account for client funds.
Facts
Thomas E. Lantz was admitted to practice in 1981 and had no prior discipline. Over several years, he committed misconduct in four separate client matters involving criminal appeals, personal injury litigation, workers’ compensation claims, and trust fund handling.
In the Black matter, Lantz accepted $13,000 to handle a criminal appeal but failed to file an opening brief or pursue alternative remedies. He later agreed to refund the fee, but the client ultimately recovered funds only through the Client Security Fund.
In the Arenas/Waxman matter, Lantz settled a personal injury and workers’ compensation claim exceeding $400,000 without obtaining required approval for his workers’ compensation fee. He withheld nearly $30,000 for more than two years and failed to comply promptly with a workers’ compensation judge’s order directing repayment.
In the Rodrigues matter, Lantz held settlement funds in trust for an incarcerated client but failed to maintain adequate records and allowed his trust account balance to fall below the client’s entitlement, resulting in misappropriation through gross neglect.
In the Thomas matter, Lantz delayed returning settlement drafts during a fee dispute with successor counsel, causing prolonged delays in payment to the client’s estate.
Charges & Violations
- §6106 — Moral turpitude (misappropriation through gross negligence)
- §6103 — Disobeying court orders
- Rule 3-110 — Incompetence
- Rule 4-200 — Illegal fee
- Rule 4-100 — Trust account violations
- Rule 3-700 — Failure to return unearned fees
Court’s Analysis
The Review Department upheld all culpability findings. It emphasized that gross negligence in handling client funds can constitute moral turpitude, even absent intentional wrongdoing. The court also confirmed that orders of workers’ compensation judges qualify as court orders for purposes of discipline under section 6103.
The court rejected procedural challenges and determined the hearing judge properly weighed credibility, aggravation, and mitigation.
The court stressed that Lantz’s misconduct spanned multiple years and involved several areas of law, demonstrating a pattern of neglect and poor trust accounting practices.
Aggravation & Mitigation
Aggravation
- Multiple acts of misconduct
- Significant client harm
- Overreaching and bad faith
- Indifference to consequences
- Lack of candor
Mitigation
- No prior discipline
- Positive character testimony
- Some pro bono work
- Misappropriation largely due to negligence
Sanctions Table
| Violation | Conduct | Authority | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Misappropriation | Trust balance fell below client funds | §6106 | Major discipline factor |
| Illegal Fee | Workers’ comp fee without approval | Rule 4-200 | Moral turpitude finding |
| Incompetence | Failure to pursue client remedies | Rule 3-110 | Multiple violations |
| Failure to Comply | Ignored workers’ compensation order | §6103 | Aggravating factor |
Outcome
The Review Department adopted the hearing judge’s recommendation of a two-year stayed suspension, two years of probation, and one year of actual suspension, along with restitution, trust account auditing, and passage of the professional responsibility exam.