Board Meeting, July 9, 2020

00:47:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYoHSbuVbYE

摘要

TLDR2020-يىلى 9-ئىيۇلدا، پىروپوف سەۋەبىدەپ باشلانغان قايتۇرۇش شۇچۇن ئورتاق مۇناسىۋەت قىلىشنى مەجبۇرلۇق قىل، بەلكى تېخىمۇ بىلىش كۆرۈپ چىقىش پىكىرىگادە بەرقارارتىش ئەھۋالىغا ئۆتكەن داۋالاش بىر دىسپلىنا ئىشىنى سوت قىلىشغا مۇرەسسە بىرىatigi ئۇلىراق بولغان ئۇزۇنغا قارىغان كەسپىي مەسئۇلىيەت سوت بېتىدە خاررىسنىڭ سورالغان بىر تەقدىماتى يۈزلىنىپ باقان. خاررىس ئۆزىنىڭ قانداق چۈشەنچىگە بىر تەرەپ قىلىش آجايىپ بىر پارچە ئۇنتۇشقۇغۇ چىقىرماقچى بولغان ئانا قوزغۇتقان. شۇ ھازىر ئايالنىڭ ئەڭ سەھىپەلىك بولغان، بولمىغان بەھسىگە داۋائىدىن كومەكتە. خاررىس ئۆزىنىڭ قانداق چۈشەنچىگە بىر تەرەپ قىلىش پارتىيەسى تەرەپ داۋاسى بىلەن باشقا نادان خارقئوزغۇچ نىيەتلىك مەسلىھەتنىڭ ئامەللىك ئىمكانىيىتلىرى قوش قەتى كىچىكى ئۈچۈن تەپتىققا بېرىلگەن توغرىسىدا ئارزۇ قىل. ئۇنىڭ غۇرۇر كوناكتا يۇقىرى ۋە تەرەپلەرنى تەكىللىگەن توغرىلىق مەسىلەشەن تەربىيلكالاش مەيىدىگى چاقىلىپ كولنى بار دەمىقىنىڭ تەنتەرىپى تام تەقەرلىك سەرگەندىنى قىلماقشى ئىشىينى باس\ بايقىغان. خاررىسنىڭ ئەلىسىدە بايلىيەنىڭ ئىش يەسلەشنى سولاشتۇرۇش بوراش كوناكتا سەھىپەلىك گەرچەسى).*ڭ

心得

  • 👥 داۋا بىر قاتتىق تېمادا ئارزۇ قىلىنغان، خاررىس داۋالاش ھەققىدە كوناكتا قوللۇق قىلىشنى يۈكلىگەن.
  • 🗓 2020-يىلى 9-ئىيۇلدا مەسىلەمىزگە كىرگۈزۈلدى.
  • 🔍 خاررىسنىڭ ئىشىنى تەتقىق قىلىش جاپا شەرەتلىك بولۇپ، بۇ ئىقتىساد ھەققىدە بىر خەۋەر سۆيلىدى.
  • 👨‍⚖️ بۇ تېما بىر كەڭ داۋا ئالدىدىن ئۆزگىچە چۈشەنچە قاراپ چىقىش ئۈچۈن س تەركىت قىلىش ۋە چۈشەنچە قىتمەكتىن خارریسنىڭ چوڭ يوقىتىلغان.
  • 🧾 خاررىس ۋە بايلىيەنىڭ ئۇ بۇيلۇق ۋە پىكىرىگە بېرىلىش، بۇ بىر ئاجىزلاشتۇتۇش.
  • 💼 خاررىسنىڭ ئىش تەۋىسىدىن ئورۇنلاشتۇرۇش جاپا ئاز بولغان كۆرۈپ سۆيلىمالدى.
  • 🩺 خاررىسنىڭ كەسپىي سەۋەبىدىكى سالاھىياتىغا بىخىللاشتۇرۇلغان يوچۇر بەرلەندى.
  • 💡 مەسىلە خاررىسنىڭ بىر قەخرىنى بايكىغان، يەتمىلەر بويىمۇ كىتوۋىتىمىز.
  • 📜 ھەددىدە خاررىس، بايلىيەنىڭ ئۈچۈن بىر ئار قۇيۇلۇق ۋە نەزىرغامچى.
  • ❗ خاررىسنىڭ داۋائى بويىچە ئەڭ غۇرور قىلغان چېڭ قوللۇق بولدى.

时间轴

  • 00:00:00 - 00:05:00

    بۈگۈن 2020-يىلى 9-ئىيۇل بولۇپ، بىر تەرتىپ بويىچە مۇھىم ئىشلار مۇھاكىمە قىلىندى. تۇنجى پەللەدە خارىنىڭ تەرتىپ ساندىكى ئايىبلانمىسى تەستىقلاندى.

  • 00:05:00 - 00:10:00

    ئەمركۇلۇق مۇدىر جۆن ئۆبرىيىن ۋە بايىي قاتنىشىدىغانلار ئۆزلىرىنى تونۇشتۇردى. خارىنىڭ دولەت ھوقۇق قاراشلىرىغا قارشى ئىچكى ئۆلچەمى ھەققىدە تەپسىلىي سۆھبەت بولدى.

  • 00:10:00 - 00:15:00

    خارى بايىي دەۋاسىدا فەرقلىق كەسەللىك ئەرز قىلىشنى مۇناسىۋەتلىك دەۋالاندى. بۇنىڭغا قارشى بەزى تەتقىقاتلاردا نەتىجىسىز ئىشلار ھاكايا قىلدى.

  • 00:15:00 - 00:20:00

    خارى ئۆز ئىسباتلىرىنى داۋاملاشتۇرۇشقا تەييار، ئەمما مۇدىر ئۆبرىيىننىڭ تەقدىم قىلغان تېپىشقۇچلىرى ئۈچۈن مۇناسىۋەتلەرنى يۆتەلمەكتە.

  • 00:20:00 - 00:25:00

    خارىنىڭ توققۇز بالىسى بار دەۋانى داۋاملاشتۇرۇشىغا مەجبۇر بولدى، بۇ جەرەيندە شوۋ گۇۋاهى بولدى ۋە بۇ تەكلىپنى ئالغىلى بولىدۇ.

  • 00:25:00 - 00:30:00

    فۇنكسىيەسى زەپ بوپ، راۋچەموك قوشۇننىڭ تەكمىللەشتىكى ناسازلىق يولىنىڭ تېخىمۇ تەكشىلىشنىڭ زۆرۈرلىكلىرىنى ئىسپاتلىدى.

  • 00:30:00 - 00:35:00

    مۇدىر ئۆبرىيىننىڭ جىنايەت ئېچىلماي، بۇنداق قانۇننىڭ بىكار قىلىنىشنىڭ نۇرغۇن گۇمانلىرى بار.

  • 00:35:00 - 00:40:00

    خارى بىردىن ئورۇنلاشتۇرۇلۇشنى جاندىۋىل كىرىشتۈرۈشنى دەۋا مەۋجۇتلار دەپ قاراشكە تاياتقان.

  • 00:40:00 - 00:47:30

    گۇمانلار، دۇنياغا قارىماي شىكاپ قىلىنغانشۇ، خارىنىڭ ئەمگەك شەكلى بۇرۇنقىدىن سىرى ليەنىڭمۇ قوغلاشنىڭ تەلىپىنى ئازايتىدۇ.

显示更多

思维导图

Mind Map

常见问题

  • بۇ ئىش داۋاسى قايسى ئەسلىگە قايتۇرۇۋاتقان؟

    بۇ ئىش دونالد ر. خاررىسقا قارشىندۇر.

  • بۇ ئىش قاچان نۇرغۇنلۇق قىلغان؟

    2020-يىلى 9-ئىيۇلدا ئىشقا كىرگۈزۈلگەن.

  • خاررىسنىڭ ئىشتىكى قانداقتۇر تۇيغۇ قىلىشقان ئاچقىچ نۇقتىسى بارمۇ؟

    بايلىيەنىڭ بىر قىسىم تۇيغۇسىقا بايلىقلىق، سەبەبى ئۇ ئاغرىقنى ھېسس قىلىدۇ.

  • خاررىسنىڭ شىكايەتلىرى نېمىدە؟

    خاررىس ئۆزىنىڭ قانداق چۈشەنچىگە بىر تەرەپ قىلىش بالىسى بىلەن باشقا كاراخانىلارنىڭ ئالدىنقى ئىش-ھويلا قاتناشتا تۇرخاشنى قوشت.

  • بۇ ئىشنىڭ تېما ئالىپ ۋاقتى قايسىلىردا غۇرۇلغان؟

    بۇ ئىشنىڭ غۇرۇر كوناكتا يۇقىرى ۋە تارالغان ۋەكىللىك قىلىش بىلەن داۋاغەرلەرنى چاقىرىشنىڭ توغرىلىق تەسۋىرى سۆيلىدى.

  • بايلىيەنىڭ ئىشتىكى نىشانى ياكى قەدىرلەش چقىندۇرمۇ؟

    توغرا، بۇ ئىشنىڭ داۋائىدىن پېقى بولالمىغان، بىرقانچە قوشۇمچە ئىشلارنى بۇنىڭدىلا شەكىللەپمىز.

查看更多视频摘要

即时访问由人工智能支持的免费 YouTube 视频摘要！
字幕
en
自动滚动:
  • 00:00:01
    um
  • 00:00:03
    excellent we are uh today is
  • 00:00:06
    july 9th 2020 this is the board on
  • 00:00:08
    professional responsibility
  • 00:00:11
    uh we are convened in the matter of
  • 00:00:13
    donald r harris which is
  • 00:00:15
    board docket number 19-4
  • 00:00:19
    and disciplinary docket number
  • 00:00:23
    2017-d 364.
  • 00:00:27
    could the parties identify themselves
  • 00:00:29
    for the record let's
  • 00:00:30
    start with disciplinary council john
  • 00:00:32
    o'brien for the office of disciplinary
  • 00:00:34
    counsel
  • 00:00:35
    uh respondent mr harris donald harris as
  • 00:00:38
    the respondent
  • 00:00:39
    excellent um so one of our public
  • 00:00:43
    members uh ms blumenthal
  • 00:00:45
    is not present today our rules allow her
  • 00:00:49
    to participate
  • 00:00:50
    uh in deliberations in the matter if she
  • 00:00:54
    reviews the she watches the reporting of
  • 00:00:57
    the argument
  • 00:00:59
    consider the respondent um mr harris do
  • 00:01:02
    you
  • 00:01:03
    object to that do you are you okay with
  • 00:01:05
    that i would have
  • 00:01:07
    no reason to object
  • 00:01:10
    so uh again we're sort of new to zoom
  • 00:01:13
    hearings in the zoom world
  • 00:01:14
    uh i would ask everybody to
  • 00:01:18
    uh mute themselves if you're not uh
  • 00:01:21
    asking a question or presenting your
  • 00:01:23
    argument so
  • 00:01:24
    um disciplinary council mr harris if
  • 00:01:26
    you're not arguing please mute
  • 00:01:27
    yourselves
  • 00:01:28
    uh and everyone on the board is gonna
  • 00:01:30
    try to do that too
  • 00:01:31
    um it can be difficult because of time
  • 00:01:34
    lags
  • 00:01:35
    uh to understand what someone else is
  • 00:01:37
    talking so
  • 00:01:38
    um i will sort of put my hand up if it
  • 00:01:41
    sounds like
  • 00:01:42
    uh counsel is so if someone's asking a
  • 00:01:46
    question and council is not hearing that
  • 00:01:48
    um so please you know sort of take a
  • 00:01:50
    look for that and be mindful of people
  • 00:01:52
    trying to interrupt to ask questions
  • 00:01:54
    um i know both disciplinary council and
  • 00:01:56
    mr harris have filed uh
  • 00:01:58
    exceptions i understand mr harris you're
  • 00:02:00
    going to argue first is that correct
  • 00:02:02
    i had not known the order of it uh i can
  • 00:02:05
    but
  • 00:02:05
    i i wasn't aware of that uh have you
  • 00:02:08
    guys well who who would like to argue
  • 00:02:10
    first you've both
  • 00:02:11
    taken in the briefing the respondent uh
  • 00:02:13
    went first disappearing counsel followed
  • 00:02:15
    and responded had the opportunity for
  • 00:02:16
    reply so i think it would make sense
  • 00:02:18
    for respondent to go first but but i'm
  • 00:02:21
    not beholden to that
  • 00:02:23
    mr harris i i miss the last word what
  • 00:02:27
    you said but uh
  • 00:02:28
    i can go first that's not a problem okay
  • 00:02:31
    how much time would you like in rebuttal
  • 00:02:35
    the total amount of time allotted is how
  • 00:02:37
    much 20 minutes
  • 00:02:39
    20 minutes i would probably like to
  • 00:02:41
    leave eight minutes for rebuttal
  • 00:02:43
    you should have uh you will have eight
  • 00:02:45
    minutes for rebuttal
  • 00:02:46
    uh mr harris please uh start when you're
  • 00:02:49
    when you're ready
  • 00:02:52
    thank you uh
  • 00:02:55
    we have a situation here with a case of
  • 00:02:58
    the baileys
  • 00:02:59
    and i was acting in that particular
  • 00:03:02
    situation
  • 00:03:03
    as a federally licensed attorney
  • 00:03:06
    all of my paperwork all of my material
  • 00:03:10
    made it very clear that i was a federal
  • 00:03:13
    only attorney
  • 00:03:15
    the baileys however um
  • 00:03:18
    suggested that i had told them that i
  • 00:03:20
    was a state attorney for which i'm not
  • 00:03:23
    on my letterhead it states that i'm not
  • 00:03:25
    a federal attorney i'm not a state
  • 00:03:26
    attorney but federal cases only
  • 00:03:28
    the reason the baileys were sent to me
  • 00:03:32
    was that there was a possibility it was
  • 00:03:33
    seen from their part
  • 00:03:35
    that the black parents were being
  • 00:03:38
    treated
  • 00:03:39
    differently than white parents of
  • 00:03:41
    children in similar
  • 00:03:43
    situations and so what started this
  • 00:03:45
    entire
  • 00:03:46
    cascade of effects was my representation
  • 00:03:50
    of the baileys after a great bit of time
  • 00:03:54
    with the bailey's case um and during
  • 00:03:57
    that time
  • 00:03:58
    i was uh suffering from mr harris can i
  • 00:04:01
    can i stop you for a second there
  • 00:04:02
    where is it in the record um that
  • 00:04:06
    the baileys came to you because
  • 00:04:09
    of some form of discrimination
  • 00:04:12
    uh being perpetrated against
  • 00:04:14
    african-american
  • 00:04:16
    parents versus white parents
  • 00:04:19
    is there anything in the record or in
  • 00:04:21
    the transcript of testimony
  • 00:04:23
    that that was why the baileys actually
  • 00:04:25
    came to you in the transcript
  • 00:04:27
    i believe it's uh 44 and 45.
  • 00:04:31
    the baileys had sought me out for that
  • 00:04:34
    reason
  • 00:04:37
    please continue thank you so the baileys
  • 00:04:40
    came to me because
  • 00:04:41
    they were feeling that the lucas county
  • 00:04:45
    uh people were not treating them fairly
  • 00:04:50
    and uh being said i was the uh
  • 00:04:53
    was a minority firm and being said i
  • 00:04:56
    uh was i don't know
  • 00:04:59
    at this point the exact recommendation
  • 00:05:01
    of output
  • 00:05:03
    that's why they came and uh what we were
  • 00:05:06
    looking at or attempting to look at
  • 00:05:09
    was the lucas county uh
  • 00:05:12
    child services agency treat black
  • 00:05:15
    families
  • 00:05:16
    exactly they were treating white
  • 00:05:18
    families mr harris can i stop you again
  • 00:05:19
    for a second
  • 00:05:20
    i'm looking at page 44 and 45 of the
  • 00:05:23
    transcript
  • 00:05:24
    and the question that was posed at line
  • 00:05:26
    9
  • 00:05:27
    of the transcript tell us about that
  • 00:05:29
    meeting what did you discuss with mr
  • 00:05:31
    harris
  • 00:05:32
    answer so when we arrived to the meeting
  • 00:05:34
    we were brought back to sit in front of
  • 00:05:36
    his desk
  • 00:05:37
    and we began to talk about what the
  • 00:05:39
    agency had been doing regarding our
  • 00:05:41
    first seven children
  • 00:05:42
    and now our eighth child has been taken
  • 00:05:45
    and mr harris stated to us that all we
  • 00:05:47
    needed to do was to give the twenty five
  • 00:05:49
    hundred dollars
  • 00:05:50
    and that the agency had been asking
  • 00:05:52
    questions but now they would have to
  • 00:05:54
    be asking him questions and all we
  • 00:05:56
    needed to do was to give the money and
  • 00:05:57
    sign the agreement
  • 00:05:59
    and then in 45 what did that mean to you
  • 00:06:02
    well based on what mr what harris had
  • 00:06:04
    shared with us
  • 00:06:05
    he told me we we would he would deal
  • 00:06:07
    with the agency
  • 00:06:09
    he said first he had to get our children
  • 00:06:10
    back for us then we would deal with the
  • 00:06:13
    agency itself and then they
  • 00:06:14
    go on to talk about the retainer
  • 00:06:16
    agreement i don't see anywhere in that
  • 00:06:18
    portion of the transcript where there's
  • 00:06:21
    any mention
  • 00:06:21
    of discrimination of race
  • 00:06:24
    or any strategy associated with um
  • 00:06:29
    yeah a civil rights claim that had been
  • 00:06:32
    the
  • 00:06:33
    understanding from the very beginning of
  • 00:06:35
    this
  • 00:06:36
    um my notes here and that was the sec
  • 00:06:39
    i can go through to find the exact uh
  • 00:06:42
    notation of
  • 00:06:43
    but this was intended to be a civil
  • 00:06:45
    rights action
  • 00:06:46
    because they had successful with the
  • 00:06:48
    other eight kids
  • 00:06:50
    in terms of any type of civil action
  • 00:06:52
    state courts
  • 00:06:53
    so mr harris my understanding is what
  • 00:06:56
    you're saying is that this was going to
  • 00:06:57
    be a 1983 civil rights action
  • 00:07:00
    what was going to be the prayer for
  • 00:07:03
    relief
  • 00:07:04
    the prayer for relief would be that the
  • 00:07:07
    babies would have the opportunity to
  • 00:07:09
    have
  • 00:07:09
    a re-hearing a more fair hearing on
  • 00:07:12
    whether or not they were qualified to
  • 00:07:14
    keep their children
  • 00:07:15
    to demonstrate that the lucas county
  • 00:07:17
    board was not treating the black
  • 00:07:19
    families as
  • 00:07:20
    they were treating the white families so
  • 00:07:22
    this would have been a request to have
  • 00:07:23
    the state court have a rehearing
  • 00:07:26
    this this would have been a request for
  • 00:07:28
    the federal court to
  • 00:07:30
    direct the lucas county board to do this
  • 00:07:32
    fairly
  • 00:07:35
    okay mr harris question please
  • 00:07:39
    um yeah your your client came to you
  • 00:07:42
    and in a rather uh from my perspective
  • 00:07:45
    at least uh
  • 00:07:46
    unusual way um apparently they had no
  • 00:07:50
    previous experience and you were
  • 00:07:52
    selected
  • 00:07:53
    uh i guess you could say out of uh a
  • 00:07:58
    search a web search um
  • 00:08:01
    my question is what what led you to take
  • 00:08:03
    this case
  • 00:08:04
    at all given the circumstances
  • 00:08:07
    the matter of the issues at hand
  • 00:08:10
    why did you believe that you were the
  • 00:08:12
    best person to handle this
  • 00:08:15
    i don't think i would have looked at it
  • 00:08:17
    in terms of the best person to handle it
  • 00:08:19
    i was the only person in
  • 00:08:21
    it i was a black attorney we had a
  • 00:08:23
    situation that was dealing with
  • 00:08:26
    and that i would protect their
  • 00:08:28
    interpretation and also mine
  • 00:08:30
    that i would probably more diligently
  • 00:08:34
    look at it from that standpoint
  • 00:08:39
    okay i i understand but in your mind
  • 00:08:42
    uh considering the relationship of the
  • 00:08:45
    state
  • 00:08:46
    in this situation uh did that enter into
  • 00:08:49
    your thinking and was there any
  • 00:08:52
    analysis of precedence as to the
  • 00:08:54
    confidence level that you could
  • 00:08:56
    prosecute this
  • 00:08:57
    properly in the federal court earlier in
  • 00:09:00
    my career i had a
  • 00:09:02
    a case against the sandusky board of
  • 00:09:04
    education where we had to
  • 00:09:07
    sue them there was a minority consultant
  • 00:09:10
    who was not being treated fairly
  • 00:09:13
    that sandusky board i looked at that
  • 00:09:16
    case as a pat
  • 00:09:17
    this particular case now that case was
  • 00:09:20
    um uh alpha community services versus
  • 00:09:25
    another uh board of education and in
  • 00:09:28
    that case we finally
  • 00:09:29
    forced the board of education to do some
  • 00:09:31
    type of but that was only
  • 00:09:34
    garnered through the fact that the
  • 00:09:35
    federal court was requiring the
  • 00:09:37
    sandusky board of education to treat
  • 00:09:40
    them fairly
  • 00:09:41
    so i looked at this case with the same
  • 00:09:43
    thought in mind of
  • 00:09:44
    how do i from what
  • 00:09:47
    initial investigation showed how do we
  • 00:09:50
    get the
  • 00:09:51
    lucas county board of
  • 00:09:54
    children services to treat black
  • 00:09:56
    families the same
  • 00:09:58
    and so the research that mrs bailey was
  • 00:10:00
    doing and i was doing
  • 00:10:01
    was research to see comparison of how
  • 00:10:04
    they're handling the white cases
  • 00:10:06
    as compared to how they were handling
  • 00:10:07
    the black cases
  • 00:10:09
    so the the example case or the the
  • 00:10:13
    the experience you had with the board of
  • 00:10:14
    education did that have a state court
  • 00:10:17
    ruling
  • 00:10:18
    with it as well like it did in this
  • 00:10:21
    custody case
  • 00:10:22
    the state court had ruled in that
  • 00:10:23
    particular case if my memory is correct
  • 00:10:26
    that community services did not
  • 00:10:29
    that the board of education could freely
  • 00:10:31
    hire or fire consultants at the
  • 00:10:33
    at their whim the problem with that
  • 00:10:35
    particular case was that the
  • 00:10:37
    alpha community services had written up
  • 00:10:39
    the contract of what was necessary to be
  • 00:10:41
    done
  • 00:10:42
    and the board of education was going to
  • 00:10:44
    take that plan and give it to a white
  • 00:10:46
    consultant which is what they did
  • 00:10:48
    okay and so i just want to make sure i
  • 00:10:49
    understand the thought process here
  • 00:10:52
    so you your understanding of the scope
  • 00:10:55
    of your representation was that
  • 00:10:57
    you would be filing a civil rights
  • 00:10:59
    complaint
  • 00:11:02
    and the prayer for relief was not going
  • 00:11:04
    to be to get the kids
  • 00:11:05
    back to the bailey but you
  • 00:11:08
    try to reform the agency no to direct
  • 00:11:11
    the agency to provide a fair hearing
  • 00:11:14
    for them based upon the evidence that
  • 00:11:16
    the baileys had provided me with
  • 00:11:17
    it should have allowed them to get all
  • 00:11:19
    of their kids back
  • 00:11:21
    despite the state court ruling on
  • 00:11:24
    custody
  • 00:11:25
    that's correct okay
  • 00:11:28
    um mr harris um
  • 00:11:31
    you know one of the the charges that
  • 00:11:34
    you were found to have uh one of the the
  • 00:11:37
    rules
  • 00:11:38
    rule violations you were bound to have
  • 00:11:39
    engaged in was functional
  • 00:11:41
    misappropriation
  • 00:11:43
    um and as you you know of course that's
  • 00:11:46
    that's an important one because under
  • 00:11:49
    the rules of our court of appeals that
  • 00:11:51
    that kind of drives the sanction
  • 00:11:53
    and if there's bound to be intentional
  • 00:11:55
    misappropriation
  • 00:11:57
    uh the the presumptive sanction is
  • 00:12:00
    disbarment
  • 00:12:01
    um and as i'm looking at the hearing
  • 00:12:03
    committee report and in paragraph 18 it
  • 00:12:05
    it you know it lays out that the money
  • 00:12:08
    comes in on
  • 00:12:09
    january 3rd 2017
  • 00:12:12
    into an account that was not an ielts
  • 00:12:14
    account and then it it goes out
  • 00:12:16
    relatively quickly
  • 00:12:18
    into personal accounts um
  • 00:12:22
    i guess i i wasn't sure i saw in your
  • 00:12:25
    filing a response to the intentional
  • 00:12:28
    misappropriation
  • 00:12:30
    charge and because that's one that is so
  • 00:12:33
    important to sanction i was wondering if
  • 00:12:35
    you could talk about
  • 00:12:37
    that there was no intent
  • 00:12:40
    to fraudulently misappropriate the funds
  • 00:12:44
    the
  • 00:12:45
    the procedure that was set up at that
  • 00:12:46
    time was that
  • 00:12:48
    uh i had to have an account to receive
  • 00:12:51
    monies
  • 00:12:52
    by credit cards so it went into the
  • 00:12:55
    credit card account which is how
  • 00:12:57
    it went i did not know or did not
  • 00:13:01
    did not time how i could have had that
  • 00:13:04
    money
  • 00:13:05
    go into a trust account i had to have
  • 00:13:07
    that money go into a
  • 00:13:09
    regular business account instead of
  • 00:13:11
    directly in the trust account
  • 00:13:12
    i will admit that what should have
  • 00:13:14
    happened at that point
  • 00:13:15
    was that as the funds came into the
  • 00:13:18
    trust account
  • 00:13:18
    i mean as a to the account that was
  • 00:13:22
    for the credit card those funds taken
  • 00:13:24
    directly
  • 00:13:25
    and put in a trust account i will admit
  • 00:13:27
    that that's what should have happened
  • 00:13:28
    um as i admitted in my response that was
  • 00:13:32
    not
  • 00:13:32
    our normal procedure in terms of giving
  • 00:13:35
    funds
  • 00:13:36
    and this was first times we'd receive
  • 00:13:38
    funds
  • 00:13:39
    that were should have gone trust account
  • 00:13:42
    to regular account but it looks like you
  • 00:13:45
    know
  • 00:13:45
    the money comes in and then 2100
  • 00:13:49
    of it goes out to a huntington national
  • 00:13:51
    bank account that ends with eight
  • 00:13:53
    seven one uh eight seven zero one sorry
  • 00:13:57
    uh which is a business account for
  • 00:14:00
    sort of ordinary business expenses of
  • 00:14:01
    the firm but that is correct
  • 00:14:04
    that is correct okay mr harris i'd like
  • 00:14:07
    you to
  • 00:14:08
    talk a little bit about what um what
  • 00:14:11
    your
  • 00:14:11
    involvement was with respect to the
  • 00:14:14
    items that
  • 00:14:16
    your firm put together on behalf of the
  • 00:14:18
    baileys including the chronology
  • 00:14:20
    the draft complaint uh and so forth i
  • 00:14:23
    understand that you had an assistant who
  • 00:14:25
    was
  • 00:14:26
    uh doing the bulk of the work but i'd
  • 00:14:29
    like to hear from you in terms of what
  • 00:14:30
    was
  • 00:14:31
    what was your involvement in the work
  • 00:14:33
    product i didn't have an assistant doing
  • 00:14:35
    the bulk of the work i did the bulk of
  • 00:14:37
    the work
  • 00:14:38
    i think i had an assistant who was
  • 00:14:39
    acting as a scriber for that
  • 00:14:41
    he did not have experience of that so he
  • 00:14:44
    would on a daily basis spend
  • 00:14:46
    two hours or more in front of my desk as
  • 00:14:48
    we would go over that material that was
  • 00:14:50
    a daily occurrence
  • 00:14:52
    so end product was my product
  • 00:14:55
    uh he provided some of some cases and
  • 00:14:58
    some other material
  • 00:14:59
    but that end product was my end product
  • 00:15:02
    if you'd like to take a couple of
  • 00:15:03
    seconds to sum up and we can hear from
  • 00:15:05
    disciplinary council
  • 00:15:08
    i think that my comment to all this was
  • 00:15:11
    as i pointed out before
  • 00:15:13
    that the
  • 00:15:17
    my failure to communicate with the
  • 00:15:18
    baileys precipitated this i understand
  • 00:15:21
    that
  • 00:15:21
    um the mediating circumstances that i
  • 00:15:24
    pointed out was
  • 00:15:25
    running blood sugar levels for the 500
  • 00:15:28
    range
  • 00:15:29
    does cause cognizant uh
  • 00:15:33
    impairment uh thank god i've reached the
  • 00:15:36
    point where
  • 00:15:37
    i'm now to a normal range and i've
  • 00:15:40
    gotten that
  • 00:15:40
    under control but uh were it not for the
  • 00:15:43
    people that were helping me at that time
  • 00:15:46
    i don't think i would have survived that
  • 00:15:47
    period of time so i'm saying that there
  • 00:15:49
    were some mistakes done
  • 00:15:51
    i don't think that in terms of this
  • 00:15:53
    offense it would rise to the level for
  • 00:15:55
    disbarment
  • 00:15:56
    i think that what it uh now looking back
  • 00:16:00
    with a clear head
  • 00:16:01
    i'm amazed i got through the days at
  • 00:16:03
    that time because that was just where my
  • 00:16:05
    condition was
  • 00:16:06
    now i'm happy to report that i keep my
  • 00:16:08
    blood sugar in the range of 100 which
  • 00:16:10
    doctor is very pleased with in and my
  • 00:16:12
    head is very pleased with
  • 00:16:14
    that would be my summation thank you um
  • 00:16:17
    mr o'brien
  • 00:16:22
    you're muted sorry i appreciate you
  • 00:16:24
    muting before
  • 00:16:27
    and actually i don't know that the clock
  • 00:16:28
    is uh give us a second let us get the
  • 00:16:31
    clock ready
  • 00:16:37
    all right mr o'brien good afternoon
  • 00:16:40
    uh may have pleased the board uh i want
  • 00:16:42
    to start by
  • 00:16:43
    just addressing a couple of things that
  • 00:16:45
    we just heard from mr harris that that
  • 00:16:47
    discipline council finds
  • 00:16:48
    uh very concerning number one
  • 00:16:51
    his his statements about the purpose of
  • 00:16:54
    the case that he just made
  • 00:16:56
    the hearing committee explored these
  • 00:16:58
    issues thoroughly
  • 00:16:59
    the hearing committee report sets out in
  • 00:17:01
    detail
  • 00:17:03
    why it did not credit um the statements
  • 00:17:06
    that are similar to the statements that
  • 00:17:08
    mr harris is making now they're not
  • 00:17:10
    exactly the same but they're they're in
  • 00:17:11
    the same vein i would say
  • 00:17:13
    um and i just want to point out a couple
  • 00:17:15
    of things that the hearing committee
  • 00:17:17
    pointed to
  • 00:17:18
    first mr harris said that he was
  • 00:17:21
    pursuing only a federal 1983 claim
  • 00:17:24
    if you look at the retainer agreement
  • 00:17:27
    that mr harris himself drafted
  • 00:17:29
    the language in that retainer agreement
  • 00:17:31
    says in the matter of custody
  • 00:17:34
    second in mr harris's letters to
  • 00:17:36
    disciplinary counsel
  • 00:17:38
    in his own words he specifically said
  • 00:17:40
    that the purpose of the litigation was
  • 00:17:42
    quote
  • 00:17:43
    to force children's services to return
  • 00:17:46
    custody of the children to the parents
  • 00:17:48
    yet when he was asked at the hearing was
  • 00:17:51
    this a custody case at transcript at 3
  • 00:17:53
    18
  • 00:17:54
    his answer was a definitive no and the
  • 00:17:58
    hearing committee explored those issues
  • 00:18:00
    i think they made findings based on
  • 00:18:02
    substantial evidence in the record on
  • 00:18:03
    those issues
  • 00:18:04
    and i just wanted to point that out
  • 00:18:06
    before we get into the substantive
  • 00:18:07
    issues that are here
  • 00:18:08
    on appeal to the board um hypothetical
  • 00:18:12
    question
  • 00:18:12
    about lawyers and retainer agreements
  • 00:18:15
    and the scope of representation
  • 00:18:16
    potentially changing
  • 00:18:18
    let's say you had a client who came in
  • 00:18:21
    and said i want to sue my former
  • 00:18:23
    employer to get reinstatement
  • 00:18:27
    i believe i was fired for retaliation
  • 00:18:29
    under whistleblowing
  • 00:18:31
    so you draft a retainer agreement saying
  • 00:18:34
    it's a whistleblower
  • 00:18:36
    complaint you do the research you
  • 00:18:39
    realize that
  • 00:18:39
    there's no viable whistleblower claim
  • 00:18:42
    there might be an
  • 00:18:43
    age discrimination claim so you start
  • 00:18:45
    doing research on age discrimination
  • 00:18:48
    where the net result is going to be
  • 00:18:49
    reinstatement as well
  • 00:18:52
    um is that an unreasonable fee
  • 00:18:55
    if you charge for that time in research
  • 00:19:00
    even given that your retainer agreement
  • 00:19:02
    says you're going to do
  • 00:19:03
    a and instead you're doing b
  • 00:19:08
    not in the hypothetical i think that you
  • 00:19:10
    laid out it's not
  • 00:19:12
    this case is different for for a lot of
  • 00:19:14
    different reasons
  • 00:19:15
    the most important being that
  • 00:19:17
    respondents own testimony at the hearing
  • 00:19:20
    specifically laid out that he was not
  • 00:19:23
    pursuing any kind of state claims or
  • 00:19:25
    anything like that
  • 00:19:25
    uh he was he specifically testified he
  • 00:19:28
    was waiting
  • 00:19:29
    for the state custody issues to end
  • 00:19:31
    before doing anything on this case
  • 00:19:33
    um he specifically uh uh
  • 00:19:37
    um
  • 00:19:40
    well that's the only thing i can think
  • 00:19:42
    of off the top of my head but
  • 00:19:44
    um over the course of the representation
  • 00:19:46
    he never communicated with mrs bailey
  • 00:19:48
    for the 10 months that this went on
  • 00:19:50
    and and again again using his own
  • 00:19:53
    statements
  • 00:19:54
    even though i don't think they should be
  • 00:19:55
    credited he's not saying that this was
  • 00:19:57
    something that he went in as a custody
  • 00:19:59
    matter
  • 00:19:59
    and then he later he later decided to
  • 00:20:01
    change and pursue a discrimination case
  • 00:20:03
    because that was the best case he
  • 00:20:05
    thought he had for his client
  • 00:20:06
    what he's what he's arguing and he
  • 00:20:08
    argued to the committee and now again to
  • 00:20:10
    the board
  • 00:20:11
    almost testifying um is that is is that
  • 00:20:14
    he was always pursuing this kind of 1983
  • 00:20:17
    discrimination claim
  • 00:20:18
    and if you look at the records including
  • 00:20:20
    the ones that i just sent to you
  • 00:20:22
    that does not bear it out at all and i
  • 00:20:24
    would also point out in the exhibits if
  • 00:20:25
    you take a look at the only work product
  • 00:20:27
    that mr harris produced
  • 00:20:29
    there's not a single mention of a single
  • 00:20:31
    federal case
  • 00:20:32
    there's not a single mention of 1983.
  • 00:20:34
    the only research that is done
  • 00:20:36
    in those draft complaint there is uh
  • 00:20:38
    there's a couple of federal cases that
  • 00:20:40
    he cited
  • 00:20:41
    you just cut me off as i was about to
  • 00:20:43
    say the only no that's that's fine you
  • 00:20:45
    just cut me off as i was as i was about
  • 00:20:46
    to say
  • 00:20:46
    the only indication of 1983 is the one
  • 00:20:50
    statement in the jurisdiction that says
  • 00:20:51
    1983 in the draft complaint
  • 00:20:53
    that was drafted not by mr harris but
  • 00:20:55
    was drafted by his legal assistant
  • 00:20:57
    right but i guess i guess you spent a
  • 00:20:59
    lot of time in in your brief talking
  • 00:21:01
    about this being
  • 00:21:02
    a a losing proposition from the outset
  • 00:21:05
    and and and i'd like you to talk a
  • 00:21:08
    little bit about that because
  • 00:21:10
    there is uh potentially a due process
  • 00:21:13
    claim here
  • 00:21:14
    if the if if the the decisions that are
  • 00:21:17
    being made
  • 00:21:18
    by this uh by the child children's
  • 00:21:21
    services is not based on clear and
  • 00:21:23
    convincing or whatever the the standard
  • 00:21:24
    was i forget it
  • 00:21:25
    uh uh right now i think that and
  • 00:21:28
    actually in the case that he cites
  • 00:21:29
    sentoski
  • 00:21:30
    versus cramer which is that new york
  • 00:21:32
    case but it's a supreme court case
  • 00:21:34
    uh they they held that
  • 00:21:38
    even after parents are found unfit in a
  • 00:21:40
    contested
  • 00:21:41
    court proceeding they retain
  • 00:21:42
    constitutionally protected
  • 00:21:44
    parental rights and that it was improper
  • 00:21:47
    to base it on a preponderance of the
  • 00:21:49
    evidence standard
  • 00:21:51
    and that was what the argument that he
  • 00:21:52
    was making in the draft complaint
  • 00:21:54
    regardless of whether or not it's the
  • 00:21:55
    assistant or
  • 00:21:56
    or him that you can't you know that the
  • 00:21:59
    appropriate standard wasn't being
  • 00:22:00
    applied
  • 00:22:01
    and that it was being applied in a
  • 00:22:02
    discriminatory manner
  • 00:22:05
    so so to respond to your question i want
  • 00:22:07
    to first point out
  • 00:22:09
    that mr harris himself at the hearing um
  • 00:22:14
    he said that he was aware that he could
  • 00:22:16
    not have forced an overturn
  • 00:22:18
    of the custody order because that was a
  • 00:22:20
    state issue
  • 00:22:21
    and the cases that we cite in our brief
  • 00:22:24
    go directly to that point that mr
  • 00:22:26
    harris himself recognized under the
  • 00:22:28
    recognized case law
  • 00:22:30
    supreme court and otherwise there's
  • 00:22:33
    under the rooker feldman doctrine
  • 00:22:35
    and under the child custody exception
  • 00:22:39
    where federal courts essentially defer
  • 00:22:41
    to the state court orders
  • 00:22:43
    the way to challenge the constitutional
  • 00:22:46
    issue that you've just raised
  • 00:22:48
    is in the state courts a state court
  • 00:22:50
    loser
  • 00:22:51
    and not after the state court proceeding
  • 00:22:54
    is done
  • 00:22:55
    cannot then go to uh a federal district
  • 00:22:58
    court case to challenge
  • 00:22:59
    to challenge the the result that that's
  • 00:23:02
    that's not true and that's what mr
  • 00:23:03
    harris is
  • 00:23:04
    recognized but i think that first i
  • 00:23:07
    think that it's a little bit confusing
  • 00:23:08
    to me at least when you say
  • 00:23:10
    on one hand that he acknowledges that he
  • 00:23:13
    could not
  • 00:23:14
    overturn the state child custody order
  • 00:23:17
    and at the same time he is asserting a
  • 00:23:20
    federal due process claim
  • 00:23:22
    uh that is consistent with the belief
  • 00:23:25
    that it is not
  • 00:23:26
    forcing the overturning or it's not
  • 00:23:28
    trying to overturn that child custody
  • 00:23:29
    order it's a due process argument
  • 00:23:31
    right so isn't that consistent though to
  • 00:23:34
    say hey
  • 00:23:35
    i can't i can't challenge whether or not
  • 00:23:38
    the
  • 00:23:38
    you know the state court order in
  • 00:23:40
    federal court but i can attack it a
  • 00:23:41
    different way
  • 00:23:42
    by saying that your due process violate
  • 00:23:44
    rights were violated under the
  • 00:23:46
    constitution
  • 00:23:47
    which could affect you know put pressure
  • 00:23:49
    on the on the agency
  • 00:23:51
    to either resolve the claim you know
  • 00:23:53
    resolve the case in a different way
  • 00:23:55
    or or some sort of settlement right we
  • 00:23:57
    don't know right because it was never
  • 00:23:59
    brought
  • 00:24:00
    so what you what you just said is it
  • 00:24:02
    could put pressure on the agency
  • 00:24:04
    um to to do something um you know
  • 00:24:07
    certainly you know as lawyers lawyers
  • 00:24:09
    can take um
  • 00:24:11
    factual facts and issues that their
  • 00:24:13
    clients present them with and try to
  • 00:24:14
    come up with novel
  • 00:24:15
    um arguments in order to benefit their
  • 00:24:18
    clients
  • 00:24:19
    and and it sounds like what what you're
  • 00:24:20
    saying is that was that was potentially
  • 00:24:23
    a possibility in this case there was
  • 00:24:25
    perhaps some sort of novel argument
  • 00:24:27
    to be made but but i would urge the
  • 00:24:29
    board to look at mr harris's statements
  • 00:24:31
    uh that we highlight in our brief uh on
  • 00:24:34
    these issues
  • 00:24:35
    he was that is that is not what he was
  • 00:24:38
    doing and even if we give him the
  • 00:24:40
    benefit of the doubt and we say that
  • 00:24:41
    there was some
  • 00:24:42
    novel the hearing committee refers to a
  • 00:24:45
    moonshot case
  • 00:24:46
    even even if you're talking about some
  • 00:24:47
    sort of novel moonshot case
  • 00:24:50
    the statement again in his own words
  • 00:24:52
    that he gave to the client was
  • 00:24:53
    i can get you your kids back and and
  • 00:24:56
    when uh when a client comes to
  • 00:24:58
    a federal bankruptcy lawyer which mr
  • 00:25:00
    harris is and says i have a child
  • 00:25:02
    custody issue
  • 00:25:03
    and that lawyer tells them i can get
  • 00:25:05
    your kids back without explaining
  • 00:25:07
    any anything about the novel the
  • 00:25:09
    novelness of his argument
  • 00:25:11
    or or or that there's generally
  • 00:25:14
    uh prohibitions to him bringing this
  • 00:25:16
    kind of case in federal court as he was
  • 00:25:18
    planning to do
  • 00:25:19
    and just moves forward um there's
  • 00:25:21
    serious problems with that argument
  • 00:25:24
    here how that i see how that
  • 00:25:28
    uh defense i i see the argument there
  • 00:25:31
    that that is a violation of 8.4c
  • 00:25:34
    right that that's uh dishonest i guess
  • 00:25:38
    where i'm having trouble
  • 00:25:39
    is seeing that that gets you uh
  • 00:25:42
    unreasonable fee
  • 00:25:43
    uh finding just because it you know it
  • 00:25:46
    looks like as the hearing
  • 00:25:47
    committee talked about um work was done
  • 00:25:50
    a complaint was drafted a chronology was
  • 00:25:52
    put together
  • 00:25:53
    um you know and there wasn't a finding
  • 00:25:55
    and i i don't
  • 00:25:56
    know uh that there was evidence that the
  • 00:25:59
    um the amount of work that was done was
  • 00:26:00
    not enough to justify the 2500
  • 00:26:02
    fee um uh i guess i
  • 00:26:05
    i don't really understand your argument
  • 00:26:08
    that there was an unreasonable fee here
  • 00:26:10
    um i understand an argument there was an
  • 00:26:12
    8.4 c violation and as a result of that
  • 00:26:15
    the fee should be
  • 00:26:16
    you know sort of disgorged um but i i
  • 00:26:19
    don't get the one
  • 00:26:20
    the unreasonable fee issue with regard
  • 00:26:23
    to the unreasonable
  • 00:26:24
    fee um discipline council recognizes in
  • 00:26:26
    its brief that that this is not a
  • 00:26:28
    prototypical case
  • 00:26:30
    um where to look at a 1.5 violation what
  • 00:26:32
    the board needs to do is look at the
  • 00:26:34
    work that was done
  • 00:26:35
    look at the value of the work look at
  • 00:26:37
    all of the factors that are listed on
  • 00:26:38
    1.5
  • 00:26:40
    and we recognize that this is
  • 00:26:41
    essentially um
  • 00:26:43
    at least with with regard to 1.5 it's a
  • 00:26:46
    case of first impression
  • 00:26:47
    um in this jurisdiction and that's why
  • 00:26:49
    we cited to the al hawk case from
  • 00:26:51
    colorado
  • 00:26:52
    which was an immigration case and the
  • 00:26:54
    reasoning there was essentially that
  • 00:26:56
    where the lawyer
  • 00:26:57
    um took fees to handle a case that was
  • 00:27:00
    effectively
  • 00:27:01
    impossible that that was essentially
  • 00:27:03
    unreasonable
  • 00:27:04
    and and i think it's i think it's
  • 00:27:05
    unreasonable almost in a colloquial
  • 00:27:07
    sense
  • 00:27:08
    you know if a layperson it you know if a
  • 00:27:10
    member of the public is listening to
  • 00:27:11
    this argument today
  • 00:27:13
    and they understand that the facts are
  • 00:27:14
    that a lawyer promises a client
  • 00:27:16
    uh an un you know essentially an
  • 00:27:19
    impossible
  • 00:27:20
    result and then collects a fee for that
  • 00:27:22
    that that just
  • 00:27:23
    that's unreasonable and and disciplinary
  • 00:27:25
    council is making that argument with the
  • 00:27:27
    citation to the
  • 00:27:28
    to the aha case here is there clear and
  • 00:27:31
    convincing
  • 00:27:31
    evidence that respondent knew that he
  • 00:27:34
    could not help his clients
  • 00:27:38
    in the way that he you know by filing
  • 00:27:40
    this federal court
  • 00:27:42
    case right and and i think what we would
  • 00:27:45
    say is with regard to
  • 00:27:46
    a 1.5 i don't think what we would say
  • 00:27:49
    with regard to a 1.5
  • 00:27:50
    issue is that if the lawyer knows or
  • 00:27:54
    should have known that it's impossible
  • 00:27:56
    it's it's still unreasonable
  • 00:27:58
    it can be both dishonest and essentially
  • 00:28:00
    a fraudulent fee and still be
  • 00:28:02
    unreasonable on the other hand you could
  • 00:28:04
    also have for example
  • 00:28:05
    if there were if there were a lawyer who
  • 00:28:07
    truly didn't know that it was impossible
  • 00:28:09
    and just
  • 00:28:10
    negligently told an immigration client
  • 00:28:12
    that he could that he could do something
  • 00:28:13
    or
  • 00:28:14
    negligently told um a state court
  • 00:28:17
    custody
  • 00:28:18
    a client who's facing state court
  • 00:28:19
    custody issues that he could help them
  • 00:28:21
    even though it's impossible you could
  • 00:28:22
    still have an unreasonable fee without
  • 00:28:24
    it being dishonest
  • 00:28:25
    in this case it's both well wait wait if
  • 00:28:28
    if the baileys came in and said hey you
  • 00:28:31
    know we've got
  • 00:28:32
    this custody case in state court we got
  • 00:28:34
    an appeal going on that
  • 00:28:35
    in that case now and that's we got a
  • 00:28:38
    lawyer for that
  • 00:28:39
    we're wondering if there's a federal
  • 00:28:40
    suit we could bring that would somehow
  • 00:28:42
    help us here
  • 00:28:44
    and mr harris had said you know i don't
  • 00:28:46
    know
  • 00:28:47
    i don't know but let me do the research
  • 00:28:49
    let me kick the tires and and if there's
  • 00:28:50
    something
  • 00:28:51
    i'm happy to do it and then he did the
  • 00:28:53
    research and
  • 00:28:54
    you know found that this is a long shot
  • 00:28:57
    this is a moon shot whatever kind of
  • 00:28:58
    shot it is
  • 00:28:59
    um and he came back and said here's what
  • 00:29:02
    we've got
  • 00:29:04
    would that be an unreasonable fate no i
  • 00:29:07
    don't think it would
  • 00:29:08
    but but that's not what happened here no
  • 00:29:10
    i know i know i know but the difference
  • 00:29:12
    between what between that and what
  • 00:29:13
    happened here it looks to me
  • 00:29:15
    is all about the representations that
  • 00:29:17
    were made at the front end
  • 00:29:18
    and that that is 8.4c land that is not
  • 00:29:22
    that is not your colorado taking money
  • 00:29:25
    to do something that's actually
  • 00:29:26
    that the lawyer knows is actually
  • 00:29:27
    impossible it's taking money to figure
  • 00:29:30
    out whether or not it's possible
  • 00:29:31
    sure absolutely but but also if you look
  • 00:29:33
    at the totality of the circumstances and
  • 00:29:35
    you look at the arc of what happened
  • 00:29:37
    here for example
  • 00:29:38
    you know after he collected the fee
  • 00:29:40
    after promising that he
  • 00:29:41
    i mean if you look at the language that
  • 00:29:43
    he himself used it was
  • 00:29:45
    i can force the agency to get your
  • 00:29:47
    children back there was a 10-month
  • 00:29:48
    period of no communication to the client
  • 00:29:51
    and then the very first communication is
  • 00:29:53
    that he shows up
  • 00:29:54
    to an in-person meeting to return their
  • 00:29:57
    original box of documents
  • 00:29:58
    and according to his own testimony he
  • 00:30:00
    said i can't handle this case
  • 00:30:03
    because i lack the manpower that that is
  • 00:30:05
    not that is not a situation where
  • 00:30:08
    he he's he looked at whether something
  • 00:30:10
    was possible
  • 00:30:11
    he determined it was not and then he
  • 00:30:13
    explained that to the client that
  • 00:30:14
    this is a case where
  • 00:30:17
    frankly as we argue in the dishonesty
  • 00:30:19
    section this was
  • 00:30:21
    this was essentially a dishonest scheme
  • 00:30:23
    to take money up front with no
  • 00:30:26
    with no thought or anything about about
  • 00:30:28
    actually providing legal services to the
  • 00:30:30
    client
  • 00:30:31
    but then why why generate any sort of
  • 00:30:33
    work on the pro
  • 00:30:34
    on the case at all then if that's what
  • 00:30:35
    the if what you're saying is correct
  • 00:30:38
    why is there this chronology why is
  • 00:30:40
    there this draft complaint
  • 00:30:42
    uh why is there this effort uh to at
  • 00:30:45
    least
  • 00:30:46
    put together something for what purpose
  • 00:30:48
    then
  • 00:30:49
    as we set forth in the brief when you
  • 00:30:52
    when you actually look at
  • 00:30:53
    the quote-unquote work product it's it's
  • 00:30:56
    all work product that was generated
  • 00:30:57
    by a non-lawyer legal assistant some of
  • 00:31:00
    the work product that legal assistant
  • 00:31:02
    actually was generated during his
  • 00:31:04
    interview process before he worked at
  • 00:31:06
    the firm
  • 00:31:06
    mr harris as part of that individual's
  • 00:31:10
    onboarding process asked him to research
  • 00:31:13
    a hypothetical child custody case
  • 00:31:15
    and provide him with cases is there
  • 00:31:17
    clear convincing evidence that mr harris
  • 00:31:19
    did not have any involvement in any of
  • 00:31:21
    that work product
  • 00:31:22
    i mean that that's the finding of the of
  • 00:31:24
    the hearing committee
  • 00:31:26
    um that after march of 2017
  • 00:31:30
    when that work product was submitted by
  • 00:31:32
    mr mull and mr
  • 00:31:33
    mull the the assistant was the only one
  • 00:31:35
    who worked on that case
  • 00:31:37
    that no further work that was done on
  • 00:31:40
    that matter by mr harris other than
  • 00:31:42
    um i believe there were some minor edits
  • 00:31:46
    including that 1983. but my question is
  • 00:31:49
    is there clear and convincing evidence
  • 00:31:50
    that mr mull is the only person
  • 00:31:52
    who worked on the on the case
  • 00:31:57
    uh the short answer would be yes
  • 00:32:02
    where like where in the record would i
  • 00:32:05
    find that
  • 00:32:05
    clearing convincing evidence i i i i
  • 00:32:09
    don't have a citation for you
  • 00:32:10
    to to support that entirely i would
  • 00:32:12
    point to the factual findings
  • 00:32:14
    of the um that the committee made
  • 00:32:18
    with regard to the work product that was
  • 00:32:20
    done and
  • 00:32:21
    for example um that primarily
  • 00:32:24
    um occurs at
  • 00:32:28
    paragraphs 28
  • 00:32:32
    to
  • 00:32:40
    42. of the um
  • 00:32:43
    of the committee report i i do does that
  • 00:32:46
    have to be does that
  • 00:32:47
    does the fact does those the hearing
  • 00:32:48
    committee's findings also have to
  • 00:32:51
    um mesh with the fact that they also
  • 00:32:53
    found that the fee wasn't unreasonable
  • 00:32:55
    though
  • 00:32:56
    at the end of the day do you see the
  • 00:32:59
    do you see the connection i mean in
  • 00:33:00
    terms of if they're saying on one hand
  • 00:33:02
    only this legal assistant worked on it
  • 00:33:04
    but on the other hand
  • 00:33:06
    it was we can't say that it's
  • 00:33:07
    unreasonable that the work that was done
  • 00:33:09
    is worth twenty five hundred dollars
  • 00:33:11
    what's your response to that uh if i
  • 00:33:14
    understand the question correctly i i
  • 00:33:16
    think i'm
  • 00:33:16
    i think i would say that the the legal
  • 00:33:19
    conclusion
  • 00:33:20
    that there was no unreasonable fee um is
  • 00:33:23
    not
  • 00:33:24
    you know it doesn't affect the factual
  • 00:33:26
    findings that the hearing committee made
  • 00:33:28
    um that i was that i was just citing to
  • 00:33:30
    you
  • 00:33:31
    uh my understanding of the hearing
  • 00:33:32
    committee's analysis on the 1.5 issue
  • 00:33:35
    is it is it rejected the finding of the
  • 00:33:38
    legal conclusion that there was an
  • 00:33:40
    unreasonable fee
  • 00:33:41
    because disciplinary council did not
  • 00:33:43
    prove that there was any client that
  • 00:33:45
    could have
  • 00:33:46
    sanctioned this kind of work
  • 00:33:49
    along the lines that chairman kaiser was
  • 00:33:51
    raising um could have sanctioned
  • 00:33:53
    kind of the investigation and we didn't
  • 00:33:55
    prove that there weren't any
  • 00:33:56
    circumstances
  • 00:33:57
    uh under which it would be reasonable to
  • 00:33:59
    pursue this kind of work
  • 00:34:01
    and and we agree with that and that's
  • 00:34:03
    not what we're saying we're saying under
  • 00:34:04
    the facts of this case
  • 00:34:06
    it was unreasonable because because of
  • 00:34:08
    mr harris's own actions
  • 00:34:10
    i do want to talk about the dishonesty
  • 00:34:12
    that discipline council accepted too
  • 00:34:14
    um this is a case where the hearing
  • 00:34:17
    committee found
  • 00:34:19
    dishonesty throughout
  • 00:34:22
    the underlying conduct and the
  • 00:34:23
    disciplinary
  • 00:34:25
    hearing it found that mr harris
  • 00:34:28
    intentionally misappropriated his
  • 00:34:29
    client's funds to pay his own personal
  • 00:34:31
    expenses
  • 00:34:32
    it found that he knowingly falsified his
  • 00:34:34
    billing records and lied to disciplinary
  • 00:34:36
    counsel about it
  • 00:34:37
    it found that he made intentional false
  • 00:34:39
    statements to the board while his
  • 00:34:40
    discipline
  • 00:34:41
    i'm sorry reckless or intentional false
  • 00:34:43
    statements to the board uh while his
  • 00:34:44
    disciplinary
  • 00:34:45
    case was pending and it found that he
  • 00:34:47
    purged himself at the disparity
  • 00:34:48
    hearing by lying under oath um
  • 00:34:51
    and notwithstanding those findings the
  • 00:34:54
    hearing committee nonetheless concluded
  • 00:34:56
    that there was not
  • 00:34:57
    clear and convincing evidence of an 8.4
  • 00:34:58
    c violation and i just wanted to quickly
  • 00:35:01
    uh address a couple points on that but
  • 00:35:04
    the first is that um with regard to the
  • 00:35:07
    finding about falsifying
  • 00:35:09
    um the billing entries and lying to
  • 00:35:11
    disciplinary counsel about it
  • 00:35:13
    that finding on its own proves
  • 00:35:16
    uh proves a violation of 8.4c dishonesty
  • 00:35:19
    in the same vein the finding about the
  • 00:35:21
    intentional misappropriation if you look
  • 00:35:23
    at the
  • 00:35:24
    hearing committee's findings although
  • 00:35:25
    they didn't find it as a matter of law
  • 00:35:27
    was dishonest its findings on the
  • 00:35:28
    misappropriation were that even though
  • 00:35:30
    he knew
  • 00:35:31
    those were client funds that he was
  • 00:35:33
    required to hold in trust
  • 00:35:35
    the very same day that he received those
  • 00:35:37
    funds he
  • 00:35:38
    quote calculatingly dispersed them
  • 00:35:41
    to various accounts to cover his own
  • 00:35:43
    personal expenses
  • 00:35:44
    uh and those findings in and of
  • 00:35:46
    themselves
  • 00:35:47
    uh are violations of of 8.4c
  • 00:35:51
    um and finally i i'd be remiss if i
  • 00:35:54
    didn't in my remaining time
  • 00:35:56
    just address um the conduct here with
  • 00:35:59
    regard directly regard to mrs bailey
  • 00:36:02
    uh this was a woman who had lost custody
  • 00:36:05
    of her children
  • 00:36:06
    and was looking for relief
  • 00:36:09
    and what she found was mr harris and she
  • 00:36:12
    came to him and he told her
  • 00:36:14
    i can help you get your children back so
  • 00:36:16
    long as you pay me 2
  • 00:36:17
    500 up front after that happened
  • 00:36:21
    she didn't get anything in return for
  • 00:36:23
    that 2 500
  • 00:36:25
    that she paid she had radio silence from
  • 00:36:27
    mr harris from the time she paid him
  • 00:36:29
    that 2 500
  • 00:36:30
    until 10 months later when he showed up
  • 00:36:33
    with a box of her original files
  • 00:36:35
    and given the
  • 00:36:38
    misconduct that we've been talking about
  • 00:36:40
    in the actions that mr harris
  • 00:36:42
    took um the evidence that he
  • 00:36:46
    had no intention of actually helping her
  • 00:36:48
    with her case
  • 00:36:49
    uh is is clear and convincing
  • 00:36:52
    and with regard to restitution
  • 00:36:55
    um uh
  • 00:36:58
    i just quickly wanted to say that we
  • 00:37:01
    pointed out in the the in rey latimer
  • 00:37:02
    case
  • 00:37:03
    even if the board disagrees that there
  • 00:37:05
    was dishonesty or an unreasonable fee in
  • 00:37:07
    this
  • 00:37:08
    case the failure to communicate
  • 00:37:11
    by mr harris and failure to accurately
  • 00:37:15
    portray his ability to help her given
  • 00:37:16
    that he wasn't licensed in ohio given
  • 00:37:18
    that it was
  • 00:37:19
    impossible or at least very nearly
  • 00:37:21
    impossible to to challenge
  • 00:37:24
    the custody order in in the federal
  • 00:37:26
    courts
  • 00:37:27
    all of that at the end of the day means
  • 00:37:29
    that mr and mrs bailey paid him 2500
  • 00:37:32
    and they got nothing in return and
  • 00:37:34
    because of that restitution
  • 00:37:36
    is absolutely appropriate in this case
  • 00:37:37
    and we would ask that
  • 00:37:39
    uh the board find that mr harris
  • 00:37:42
    violated rule 8.4c
  • 00:37:43
    he violated rule 1.5 a and that
  • 00:37:46
    the board ordered the restitution should
  • 00:37:48
    be made thank you
  • 00:37:51
    uh paris you have uh eight minutes
  • 00:37:55
    uh in rebuttal once we get the clock
  • 00:37:58
    set
  • 00:38:03
    uh mr harris uh whenever you're ready
  • 00:38:06
    i would point out to the board that what
  • 00:38:08
    happened in this particular case
  • 00:38:10
    was the baileys
  • 00:38:13
    came 60 some miles to my
  • 00:38:17
    office from toledo ohio they came that
  • 00:38:19
    60 some miles because they needed a
  • 00:38:21
    black
  • 00:38:22
    lawyer who would understand that the
  • 00:38:24
    actions that were done to them
  • 00:38:25
    by a white agency were not
  • 00:38:28
    being fairly done we had said at that
  • 00:38:31
    point
  • 00:38:32
    that the only way that we could get
  • 00:38:34
    their kids back
  • 00:38:35
    was to show that this agency was not
  • 00:38:38
    treating him fairly
  • 00:38:40
    the reason we waited until the lower
  • 00:38:42
    court case was done
  • 00:38:43
    was that we knew that the lower court
  • 00:38:45
    case was based upon
  • 00:38:48
    the rulings of that agency so
  • 00:38:51
    we were looking at it to make sure was
  • 00:38:55
    the 1983 claim was yes the starting
  • 00:38:58
    place
  • 00:38:59
    but really we were looking at whether or
  • 00:39:01
    not this could have been a due process
  • 00:39:03
    now i had mr harris as i
  • 00:39:06
    uh as i understand it the uh
  • 00:39:09
    the appellate court issued their
  • 00:39:11
    decision
  • 00:39:13
    upholding the juvenile court's order i
  • 00:39:15
    think sometime in
  • 00:39:16
    july of 2017 is that correct that's
  • 00:39:19
    correct
  • 00:39:19
    what what work did you do on this case
  • 00:39:22
    after
  • 00:39:23
    you after the the appellate court issue
  • 00:39:25
    is
  • 00:39:26
    its decision on the july at that time
  • 00:39:28
    period we were moving out of the case
  • 00:39:31
    we were communicating we weren't
  • 00:39:33
    communicating and writing we were
  • 00:39:34
    talking to
  • 00:39:35
    the baileys in terms of what could be
  • 00:39:37
    their next step because even though the
  • 00:39:40
    the the uh lower court had
  • 00:39:44
    ruled against them the still we the fact
  • 00:39:47
    that there could have been an unknown
  • 00:39:48
    problem here
  • 00:39:49
    they were black people in front of a
  • 00:39:51
    white agency and what could have been
  • 00:39:52
    going on
  • 00:39:53
    um i don't think that we looked at that
  • 00:39:56
    in terms of my conversation with the
  • 00:39:58
    baileys as this being an impossible
  • 00:40:01
    uh we have looked at as a black
  • 00:40:04
    group looking at the federal court to
  • 00:40:06
    provide some relief for what
  • 00:40:08
    should not have been an impossible
  • 00:40:09
    situation so from the very start
  • 00:40:11
    the research and other things were that
  • 00:40:14
    this was a
  • 00:40:15
    uh not an impossible but you know
  • 00:40:18
    they said it was a hail mary type
  • 00:40:20
    approach that looked at it mrs i'm
  • 00:40:22
    looking at your
  • 00:40:23
    invoices though and i'm trying to see i
  • 00:40:25
    don't see any entries
  • 00:40:26
    between march 14th 2017 and when you met
  • 00:40:31
    with the baileys
  • 00:40:33
    uh on halloween of 2017.
  • 00:40:37
    um and you know as we just talked about
  • 00:40:40
    the fact that the appellate court
  • 00:40:42
    issued its decision in in july of 2017
  • 00:40:45
    why if you were speaking to miss bailey
  • 00:40:48
    after the appellate court issued its
  • 00:40:50
    decision
  • 00:40:52
    did you not reflect that on these
  • 00:40:53
    invoices they weren't reflected on the
  • 00:40:55
    invoices no
  • 00:40:57
    okay is there a particular reason why or
  • 00:41:00
    i think at that point i don't have a
  • 00:41:03
    good answer
  • 00:41:04
    know that we were having some computer
  • 00:41:06
    but i don't think that that would be the
  • 00:41:07
    cause of it
  • 00:41:08
    they just weren't being reflected on it
  • 00:41:15
    i think that we looked at state court
  • 00:41:19
    uh our initial impression of this he
  • 00:41:21
    wanted to challenge the process
  • 00:41:24
    um i'm getting a message on my screen
  • 00:41:26
    that you can still hear me
  • 00:41:29
    okay so that was really we were not
  • 00:41:33
    trying to be reckless
  • 00:41:35
    if if if as mr o'brien stated
  • 00:41:38
    intention was just to take this money
  • 00:41:40
    from the baileys
  • 00:41:41
    that there was been no reason to do the
  • 00:41:43
    work that we did do on it
  • 00:41:45
    there would have been no reason to
  • 00:41:46
    assign
  • 00:41:48
    this and for me to supervise all as he
  • 00:41:50
    was doing it
  • 00:41:51
    that was not the intention at all um
  • 00:41:53
    sometimes
  • 00:41:54
    we look at this and open bankruptcy
  • 00:41:56
    court and the other courts that i've had
  • 00:41:58
    experiences
  • 00:41:59
    the role of a lawyer my feeling and what
  • 00:42:01
    i expressed to
  • 00:42:03
    bailey's was we have to look at the role
  • 00:42:06
    sometimes we have to
  • 00:42:07
    change the law and that's what we're
  • 00:42:08
    looking at in this particular case
  • 00:42:10
    so there was no personal expenses for
  • 00:42:14
    this
  • 00:42:14
    the monies was taken from the charge
  • 00:42:17
    account
  • 00:42:18
    business account not so much for
  • 00:42:20
    personal expenses but for office
  • 00:42:21
    overhead
  • 00:42:22
    so um i i just think that in terms of
  • 00:42:25
    the totality of this
  • 00:42:27
    it should not rise to the level of
  • 00:42:29
    disbarment
  • 00:42:30
    there was no fraudulent actions at this
  • 00:42:34
    there were some mistakes made
  • 00:42:37
    can we get the kids back i think the
  • 00:42:39
    bottom line to that would be
  • 00:42:41
    if this white agency took your kids we
  • 00:42:43
    have to fight everywhere we can to see
  • 00:42:45
    if there's a possibility
  • 00:42:47
    of getting the kids back is there a
  • 00:42:48
    possibility of of change
  • 00:42:50
    and that's what we looked at so with
  • 00:42:53
    that i would
  • 00:42:54
    i would close questions
  • 00:42:59
    why did you ultimately not file the
  • 00:43:01
    complaint that you drafted or that was
  • 00:43:02
    drafted by your phone
  • 00:43:04
    at that time my blood sugar was staying
  • 00:43:06
    in the 400s
  • 00:43:07
    constantly i was going back and forth
  • 00:43:10
    between the emergency room and
  • 00:43:12
    and uh the office so
  • 00:43:15
    until i could get that under control
  • 00:43:18
    um there was nothing i could do
  • 00:43:21
    i i was at that point i'm happy to
  • 00:43:23
    report
  • 00:43:24
    on insulin three times a day now i'm on
  • 00:43:27
    insulin once a week
  • 00:43:28
    so it was that drastic a change in terms
  • 00:43:31
    of
  • 00:43:32
    both my cognizant function and just my
  • 00:43:34
    ability to function at all
  • 00:43:37
    as i mentioned where where in the record
  • 00:43:40
    can we
  • 00:43:40
    find uh the evidence of uh the the
  • 00:43:43
    disability you're speaking of at the
  • 00:43:45
    time
  • 00:43:45
    of your representation of the baileys
  • 00:43:48
    um i believe that should occur in my
  • 00:43:51
    medical records that were provided
  • 00:43:53
    um i think i was seeing dr frankel
  • 00:43:56
    during that entire time period
  • 00:43:59
    when were you actually diagnosed with
  • 00:44:00
    with anything related to any sort of
  • 00:44:03
    courtesy mitigation that you'd like us
  • 00:44:05
    to to look at
  • 00:44:07
    any sort of condition that would support
  • 00:44:09
    cursing mitigation
  • 00:44:12
    the uh original diagnosis was done
  • 00:44:15
    in in january of 2017 would have
  • 00:44:18
    probably been
  • 00:44:19
    the original diagnosis that this was
  • 00:44:20
    going uh overboard
  • 00:44:22
    and that should be reflected by
  • 00:44:23
    cleveland clinic records
  • 00:44:25
    mr harris given that you
  • 00:44:29
    had this uh uh this i guess disability
  • 00:44:32
    or this
  • 00:44:32
    issue uh medical issue isn't it
  • 00:44:35
    incumbent on you
  • 00:44:36
    to do something to deal with a client
  • 00:44:40
    and indicate that you were no longer
  • 00:44:42
    able to prosecute the case
  • 00:44:46
    the answer that would be yes if i knew
  • 00:44:48
    what was going on
  • 00:44:50
    but uh during that time period i didn't
  • 00:44:52
    know what was going on
  • 00:44:54
    uh it really took other people to tell
  • 00:44:56
    me
  • 00:44:57
    hey you're acting strangely your
  • 00:44:59
    memory's going
  • 00:45:00
    let's go to the emergency room uh that's
  • 00:45:02
    what finally pushed it over
  • 00:45:04
    i think did i not have the people around
  • 00:45:07
    me that i had i'd be dead now
  • 00:45:09
    it's as simple as that right but you're
  • 00:45:11
    you're
  • 00:45:12
    admitting as i understand it that you
  • 00:45:14
    really were not able to do the job
  • 00:45:16
    uh and that did not uh uh
  • 00:45:20
    occur to you you were not cognizant of
  • 00:45:22
    that uh during your illness that you
  • 00:45:24
    were not able to carry it out
  • 00:45:27
    no i would i wouldn't have been able to
  • 00:45:29
    evaluate that i had some very good staff
  • 00:45:32
    people working with me which kept
  • 00:45:34
    kept it going but uh no i i don't think
  • 00:45:36
    i would have been cognizant of that
  • 00:45:38
    but during the same time period were you
  • 00:45:40
    still having an active
  • 00:45:42
    bankruptcy practice and i'm talking
  • 00:45:45
    about in the 2017
  • 00:45:48
    yes i understand that
  • 00:45:51
    a bankruptcy practices really fill out
  • 00:45:54
    the forms
  • 00:45:55
    uh it is the legal aspect of it is a
  • 00:45:58
    review that the numbers match
  • 00:46:00
    and and you're done with it so an active
  • 00:46:03
    bankruptcy practice would have
  • 00:46:06
    little or no court appearances um
  • 00:46:09
    merely material goes to the to the court
  • 00:46:12
    it's reviewed by the us trustee's office
  • 00:46:15
    and the bankruptcy
  • 00:46:16
    that are not granted
  • 00:46:19
    the complicating one would be if it was
  • 00:46:20
    a chapter 13 but
  • 00:46:22
    we didn't do that many 13s fact is we
  • 00:46:25
    kind of stayed away from 13s
  • 00:46:26
    they were complicated uh mr
  • 00:46:30
    harris i know disciplinary council took
  • 00:46:32
    a little bit more than it's a lot of
  • 00:46:33
    time to wrap up
  • 00:46:34
    uh if you would like to take a few more
  • 00:46:37
    seconds just to
  • 00:46:38
    to sort of wrap up i see your time is
  • 00:46:40
    out please feel free to do that
  • 00:46:42
    no i i i think the only thing i would
  • 00:46:44
    like to point out is
  • 00:46:46
    that you know i'm i'm really pointing
  • 00:46:48
    out that
  • 00:46:49
    the start of this case was the start of
  • 00:46:51
    the bailly case was a valid start
  • 00:46:54
    an attempt to help the baileys um my
  • 00:46:57
    condition going downhill
  • 00:47:02
    that in the depression was enough to to
  • 00:47:04
    cause me not to be able to handle it as
  • 00:47:06
    well as i should have handled
  • 00:47:07
    now whether or not that is justification
  • 00:47:10
    that that's going to be up to this court
  • 00:47:12
    to decide thank you for that election
  • 00:47:14
    time yeah you're very welcome all right
  • 00:47:17
    thanks very much everybody the case is
  • 00:47:18
    submitted
  • 00:47:20
    thank you
  • 00:47:29
    you
标签
  • داۋا
  • دىسپلىنا
  • قۇرۇلۇش
  • يېتىشتۈرۈش
  • ئەگىشىش
  • مۇناسىۋەت
  • تەكشۈرۈش
  • ئۆزئۈنۈش
  • پەرۋازنى
  • ئاللاھ