A while back I wrote a piece about a relatively deep conversation I had about right and wrong and why lawyers do some really bad things with a SuperShuttle driver in Phoenix. If you missed it, you can read it here. But one of the things I didn’t say during that conversation was that there are some people out there who are: just.the.worst. Some of them end up lawyers. And when they do, hoo boy.
I imagine if I asked the driver to paint the picture of someone who he would consider the worst possible lawyer of any of the truly rotten apples,then he’d probably say it would be someone who steals money, lies, is disrespectful, rude, vindictive, a bully, and maybe even something of a racist/misognynist/homophobe. It is probably less likely that the driver would even think to also say that he blabs about privileged communications, but maybe he’d think to make that point as well. Well, this Indiana lawyer who just got disbarred the first day of this month reads like he came straight out of central casting for the part.
I bet lots of people will be writing about this character, or already have written about him ( I promise I’m not lying when I say I haven’t gone looking for or read anybody’s take on this guy yet beyond the ABA Journal story here that got it on my radar screen).
I’m writing about him right now because I’m lazy. My seminar season is about to kick into gear starting tomorrow with an hour of ethics I am looking forward to doing for the Memphis Bar Association Labor & Employment section here in Memphis. Between actual work and seminar season, I’m going to have to be highly efficient with content for the blog this month.
Go read the order in all its gory detail if you can manage it, or I can give you a pretty good feel for it with this snippet of the Court’s order:
The seriousness, scope, and sheer brazenness of Respondent’s misconduct is outrageous. He stole approximately $150,000 from his clients, threatened and intimidated his staff, disparaged and mocked virtually everyone around him, lied to all comers, and obstructed the Commission’s investigation. Perhaps most disturbingly, Respondent repeatedly and fundamentally breached the duty of confidentiality that lies at the heart of the attorney-client relationship. Respondent recorded privileged conversations and shared those recordings with others for his own amusement, he solicited his office staff to do the same, and he posted client confidences and falsehoods on a legal marketing website in order to “punish” certain clients and inflate Respondent’s own website ranking.
There are some nuances to the guy’s situation – like manipulating online reviews and whether opinions like that New York one from earlier this year tempt that kind of behavior – that could merit some thoughtful exploration, but it doesn’t deserve to be done in the context of someone who appears to just be a horrible human being.