IN The Matter of Robert L. Glasser

|FOR THE RESPONDENT |FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT |
| |DISCIPINARY COMMISSION |
| | |
|Jeffrey W. Mendes |Donald R. Lundberg, Executive |
|One Virginia Ave., Ste. 200 |Secretary |
|Indianapolis, IN 46204 |Fredrick L. Rice, Staff Attorney |
| |115 West Washington Street, Suite 1060|
| |Indianapolis, IN 46204 |
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF )
) CASE NO. 49S00-9804-DI-243
ROBERT L. GLASSER )
DISCIPLINARY ACTION
December 15, 2000
Per Curiam
The hearing officer appointed to hear this attorney disciplinary
matter has concluded that respondent Robert L. Glasser converted his
client’s funds to uses unrelated to the clients, lied to them about the
status of their cases and about the existence of settlements, neglected
legal matters entrusted to him, and failed to cooperate during the
Disciplinary Commission’s investigation of his actions. The hearing
officer’s report is now before us for final resolution of this matter.
The respondent was admitted to practice law in this state on November
18, 1975, and is therefore subject to this Court’s disciplinary
jurisdiction. Effective June 24, 1999, this Court suspended him from the
practice of law pending final determination in this case, pursuant to his
written consent to such a suspension. Neither he nor the Disciplinary
Commission has petitioned this Court for review of the hearing officer’s
report. That being the case, we adopt the findings contained therein, but
reserve final judgment as to misconduct and sanction. Matter of Grimm, 674
N.E.2d 551 (Ind. 1996). The verified complaint for disciplinary action
underlying this case contains seven counts.
Accordingly, under Count I, we now find that on November 30, 1994, the
respondent began representing a client seeking worker’s compensation and
social security benefits. Although the Worker’s Compensation Board later
directed the client’s employer to resume making payments to the client, it
did not approve any attorney fees to be paid from them. In May 1995, the
employer’s insurer issued a check for $2,024.11 to client, in the care of
the respondent. Although the respondent deposited the check into his
client trust account, he failed to notify his client of its receipt.
After the deposit, the respondent wrote several checks against the trust
account, none of which were payable to his client. By May 23, 1995, the
balance of the trust account was not enough to satisfy client and third
party obligations.
The client began contacting the respondent regularly about the status
of the payment. The respondent failed to inform the client that he had
received the check, and instead told him that it was “in the mail.” The
respondent eventually acknowledged that he had received the check and told
the client that he had mailed him a separate check for the proper amount.
That statement was untrue and the client never received a check from the
respondent. The client eventually went to the respondent's office to
retrieve his money. The respondent wrote the client a postdated check
from his trust account for $1,519.29, which was $504.82 less than the
settlement. Despite the fact that the Board had not authorized an attorney
fee, the respondent told the client that he was retaining the difference as
a fee.
On December 1, 1995, the respondent received a Case Readiness Order
from the Board member presiding over the case. It required the respondent
to file additional documentation, or risk substantial delays in the
processing of the claim. The respondent failed to comply with the order,
resulting in suspension of the client’s claim. The client eventually
provided the required documentation. On October 28, 1996, the client fired
the respondent.
Shortly after the client filed a grievance against the respondent, the
respondent offered to withdraw his petition for attorney fees from the
client’s settlement in return for withdrawal of his grievance. On November
4, 1996, the Commission demanded that the respondent provide a response to
the client’s grievance. The respondent failed to provide a response.
COUNTII
The respondent agreed to serve as successor counsel on behalf of a
client regarding a worker’s compensation claim. The respondent obtained
the case file, which consisted of the employer’s report of the client’s
injury and an agreement filed by the employer’s insurer to provide
temporary disability benefits.
In early 1990, the respondent knew the client was relying on him to
file an application for adjustment of the claim, and provided his client
with an adjustment application to complete. In November 1990, the client’s
doctor prescribed physical therapy, which the client received, paying the
bill of $850. The respondent advised the client that his impairment award
was $3,300, less $700 attorney fees, and told him that he would negotiate
for reimbursement of the physical therapy bill. In fact, the insurer
offered to settle for $2,750, but the respondent did not inform his client
of the offer.
Ultimately, the respondent never filed the client’s claim. The
statute of limitations expired in October 1991, but the respondent failed
to inform his client. From 1991 through 1993, the client called the
respondent monthly to check the case’s status. On occasions when the
respondent returned the calls, he advised the client that he was
negotiating a settlement.
In May 1993, the client agreed to accept $3,300 plus $850
reimbursement for the physical therapy, based on a bogus settlement form
the respondent provided. The respondent later gave his client another
settlement form, this one calling for a reduced settlement of $2,750, less
attorney fees and expenses of $789. This settlement agreement, like the one
before, was fabricated.
In October 1994, the respondent provided his client with a bogus
settlement check for $1,961. The respondent told his client he was still
negotiating the medical reimbursement, which was false. Two weeks later,
the respondent again lied when he told his client that the opposing party
agreed to pay $600 toward medical reimbursement and that a check would soon
arrive. Ten days later, the respondent said that he had the check and that
he would fax the client a copy, but never did. The client asked if he
could pick up the check; the respondent told him he was still negotiating
it. In late 1994, the client learned the true status of his case. The
respondent later failed to provide a response to the client’s grievance as
demanded by the Commission.
COUNT III
In May 1989, the respondent agreed to pursue increased worker's
compensation benefits for a client, but subsequently missed the time limit
for filing an application for increased benefits. The insurer later moved
to dismiss the claim as untimely. On October 26, 1993, the hearing
officer dismissed the claim pursuant to an order to show cause.
Throughout the representation, the client frequently called the respondent
to check on her case, but the respondent rarely returned her calls. The
respondent did not inform her that the Board dismissed her claim. Instead,
the respondent advised her that he had settled her claim for $1,800 and
that he was entitled to $1,400. Despite numerous attempts, the client was
unable to contact the respondent again until early 1995, when the
respondent again told her that he had settled her claim. In February 1995,
the respondent sent her bogus settlement papers, which she signed and
returned. The respondent continued to lead his client to believe a
settlement was forthcoming until June 1995, even after the client filed a
grievance against him. In September 1995, the client went to the
respondent's office to retrieve her settlement funds. The respondent gave
her two checks. The first was for $400 and the second, drawn from the
respondent’s client trust account, was for $1,000. The respondent asked
the client to hold the second check for one week until there was enough
money in the trust account to cover it. She tried to cash the second check
that day, but was told that the respondent's trust account contained
insufficient funds. That same day, the respondent deposited $600 from his
general account into his trust account.[1]
In responding to the Commission after the client’s grievance, the
respondent claimed that his representation of the client was limited by her
inability to pay for documentation necessary to prove her case. He also
responded: “Thus, with [the client’s] understanding and approval, and at
her specific request, I entered into negotiations and her claim was
ultimately settled to her satisfaction."
On May 7, 1996, Commission investigators[2] requested copies of the
settlement checks and specific correspondence, but the respondent failed to
comply. In December 1996 and again in October and November 1997, the
Commission subpoenaed copies of the settlement checks and accompanying
financial records from the respondent. The respondent claimed he did not
have the materials.
COUNT IV
In August 1989, a client hired the respondent to appeal a denial of
Social Security disability benefits. In September 1992, the respondent
notified his client of an appointment for a medical examination. After
that, he did not contact her until March 1995, when he sent her a case
update form referring to enclosures she needed to complete. In 1995 and
1996, the respondent informed the client that he would contact her when he
heard anything about her appeal. The respondent also sent her copies of
three letters he sent the Social Security Administration in the summer of
1996 requesting to review her file.
In September 1996, the client visited the Social Security office and
discovered that the agency had no record of her appeal on file.
COUNT V
The respondent settled a worker's compensation case for $2,087 on
behalf of a client and deposited the settlement check into his attorney
trust account. That day, he issued a $517.40 check to himself from his
trust account for attorney fees. He then sent his client a check for
$200.24, designating it as “full and final” payment. He provided his
client with no written accounting explaining the amount retained or
detailing disbursements.
Thereafter, the respondent should have had at least $1,569.60 in his
trust account to satisfy client obligations, but the balance in the trust
account eventually fell to $21.88. The disposition of the net amount of
the remaining settlement proceeds (less payment of one $200 medical bill)
was never explained to the client. Several times the client requested an
accounting of the settlement of her worker's compensation case. The
respondent never responded.
The Commission twice demanded a response from the respondent to
the client’s grievance, but the respondent failed to comply.
COUNT VI
In early 1995, a client hired the respondent to represent her in a
worker's compensation matter. On May 13, 1997, the respondent informed her
that he had settled her case for $3,000, and provided her a check drawn on
his attorney trust account for $2,221. On May 19, 1997, the respondent
issued a check to himself drawn on his trust account for $500 for “partial
payment” of his attorney fees. In fact, there had been no settlement of
the case.
On October 6, 1997, the respondent did in fact settle the case for
$4,500, and on October 13,1997, he had the client sign a settlement
agreement. The respondent falsely told the client that this settlement
covered the original $3,000 of May 1997 plus an additional $1,500 he was
able to get when he subsequently reopened the settlement negotiations.
On November 21, 1997, the respondent deposited the $4,500 settlement
check into his attorney trust account. The respondent did not inform the
client that he had received the settlement check, or that he had deposited
it into his trust account. That day, the respondent wrote a check from his
trust account to himself in the amount of $2,221 as reimbursement for the
amount he provided to his client on May 13, 1997.
Between November 1997 and April 1998, the client on several occasions
requested an accounting of the proceeds from the settlement. The
respondent failed to oblige. The respondent should have been holding at
least $1,279 from the settlement in trust, but on December 29, 1997, the
balance of the respondent's trust account was $471.51, and by February 25,
1998, it fell to $45.44. An unpaid third party bill that the client
noticed had not been paid by August 1997 remained unpaid for approximately
one year, despite the client’s requests that the respondent pay the bill.
On April 7, June 3, and June 12, 1998, the respondent issued
checks to the client drawn on his trust account totaling $888.28. The
respondent never provided an accounting or final disbursement statement to
the client. The respondent never paid to the client approximately $79.48
of settlement proceeds to which she was entitled. Since the client filed
her grievance against the respondent, he has twice failed to comply with
the Commission’s demands for information.
COUNTVII
In November 1997, the respondent settled a client’s worker's
compensation case for $9,500, paid by two checks which the respondent
deposited into his client trust account. Thereafter, he disbursed, inter
alia, a partial distribution to the client and a $1,750 payment to himself
for attorney fees. After the distributions, the respondent should have
been holding at least $6,000 of the proceeds for obligations of his client
and third parties.
On December 4, 1997, the respondent withdrew $3,950 from his trust for
himself, reducing its balance to $5,203.74. On February 18, 1998, when
the respondent made the final distribution of the proceeds, he had
disbursed all but $250 of the settlement proceeds. This amount was the
balance of the respondent's attorney fee, which he allowed to remain in his
trust account. The respondent later failed to respond to the Commission’s
demand for a response to the client’s grievance.
By deceiving his clients as to the status of their cases and the
existence of settlements, the respondent engaged in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation, in violation of
Ind.Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(c). By converting client funds to uses
unrelated to the clients, the respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b),
which prohibits lawyers from engaging in criminal acts that reflect
adversely on their honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as lawyers in other
respects. By attempting to persuade a client to “withdraw” a grievance
against the respondent by offering to forgo a legal fee, the respondent
engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in
violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c). By failing to respond to the
Commission’s demand for responses to client’s grievances, the respondent
violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b). He engaged in fraudulent and deceitful
conduct in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) by telling the Commission that
he had negotiated a settlement on behalf of a client when in fact he had
not.
By allowing clients’ causes of action to expire due to the passing of
statutes of limitation, the respondent failed to act with reasonable
promptness and diligence in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3. By failing to
advise his clients of such circumstances, and by generally failing to
respond to their requests for information about their cases, the respondent
failed to keep them adequately informed to the extent needed to permit them
to make informed decisions regarding the representations, in violation of
Prof.Cond.R. 1.4. In Counts V and VI, by not providing his clients with
written statements showing the method of determination of his contingent
fee, the respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(c). By failing to abide by
the case readiness order in Count I, the respondent failed to abide by the
obligations of a tribunal in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 3.4(c).
Professional Conduct Rule 1.15(a) provides that lawyers shall keep
their own property separate from property they hold for clients in
connection with representations. By depositing his own funds into his
client trust account, and by failing to withdraw his own earned fees from
the account, the respondent violated the rule. Rule 1.15(b) provides that
after receiving property to which clients are third parties are entitled,
lawyers shall promptly deliver the property to them. The respondent failed
to do so on several occasions and therefore violated the rule.
Having found misconduct, we now turn to the issue of proper
sanction. In so doing, we note factors in aggravation and mitigation. The
hearing officer found several factors which aggravate the respondent’s
misconduct. The respondent made no effort at the hearing of this
matter to express any remorse for his misconduct, even though several of
the persons harmed by his misconduct were present at the hearing. His
actions reflect a pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses. He
repeatedly misappropriated and misused client funds and often lied to
clients to cover-up what he was doing, reflecting self-serving and
dishonest motives. His acts demonstrate a lack of honesty and integrity
critical to the ethical practice of law.
The hearing officer found no factors in mitigation. She recommends
disbarment.
We agree with the hearing officer’s assessment that the respondent’s
acts indicate consistent dishonesty and untrustworthiness in dealings with
clients. His disregard for the Commission also evidences behavior
incompatible with the privilege of holding a license to practice law.
Accordingly, we find that the hearing officer’s recommendation should be
approved.
It is, therefore, ordered that the respondent, Robert L. Glasser, is
hereby disbarred. The Clerk of this Court is directed to strike his name
from the Roll of Attorneys.
The Clerk of this Court is further directed to provide notice of this
order in accordance with Admis.Disc.R. 23(3)(d) and to provide the clerk of
the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the clerk of
each of the United States District Courts in this state, and the clerks of
the United States Bankruptcy Courts in this state with the last known
address of respondent as reflected in the records of the Clerk.
Costs of this proceeding are assessed against the respondent.
Shepard, C.J., and Dickson, Sullivan, Boehm, JJ., concur.
Rucker, J., dissents, and would suspend for three years, believing that
disbarment is not consistent with precedent.
-----------------------
[1] The respondent previously made other, similar transfers. For
example, on August 15, 1995, he deposited a check for $550 from his general
account into his trust account. On August 4, 10, and 28, he deposited his
own traveler's checks in the amounts of $1,300, $1,000, and $700 into his
trust account.
[2] The Indianapolis Bar Association initially investigated the grievance
on behalf of the Disciplinary Commission.