In February 1992, the respondent undertook to represent a client with a long history of mental illness. The respondent had been friendly with the client and her mother for over twenty years. The client’s mother had been appointed her guardian in 1985 because the client was unable to care for herself. When the mother had a stroke and became incapacitated in December 1991, the client turned to the respondent for assistance because only the mother could write checks and pay bills.
In March 1992, the respondent, on the client’s behalf, filed a petition for dismissal of guardianship with the probate court. After hearing, the probate court found the client competent to handle her affairs and terminated the guardianship. Although legally competent, the client required the respondent’s assistance in handling her own and her mother’s affairs.
Subsequently, the respondent petitioned on the client’s behalf for conservatorship of her mother, which the court approved in May 1992. In June 1992, the respondent filed an inventory in the conservatorship which reported that the mother’s estate had $381,605.51 in personalty and $287,500 in real estate. On behalf of the client, the respondent opened an estate account and made himself a signatory. The respondent deposited rents, the client’s social security benefits, the mother’s pension and other public benefits to the estate account. The respondent paid the bills for the client and the mother through the estate account.
In October 1992, the mother died intestate leaving the client as her only heir. In November 1992, the respondent filed a petition for administration in the probate court requesting that he and the client be appointed co-administrators of the mother’s estate, which was allowed. Upon the mother’s death, the respondent assumed control of the estate funds. The respondent opened several bank accounts with the estate’s funds to which he deposited rents and the client’s social security benefits. The respondent failed to maintain complete and adequate records of the accounts.
Between February 1992 and July 1995, the respondent withheld at least $89,232 for his fees as co-administrator of the mother’s estate, as attorney for the client and as the client’s unofficial caretaker. Most of the services performed for the client were non-legal, and the respondent improperly billed the client at his regular legal rate of $200 per hour. In addition, the respondent did not maintain adequate documentation to support all the fees charged. The respondent billed the mother’s estate an excessive fee to prepare the Massachusetts estate tax return, charging for 16 hours at a rate of $200 per hour.
In August 1995, the respondent filed first and final accounts for the mother’s conservatorship and for the estate, which were allowed. After expenses and fees, a final distribution was made to the client.
In August 1995, the Department of Mental Health filed a guardianship petition for the client. In December 1995, the probate court appointed a temporary guardian (a permanent guardian was appointed in June 1996) and a guardian ad litem for the client.
In February 1996, the guardian ad litem filed reports with the court analyzing the respondent’s claims for expenses and legal fees in connection with his role as co-administrator of the mother’s estate and as attorney for the client. Because of his inadequate record keeping, the respondent was unable to produce to the guardian a complete set of bank statements for each of the accounts.
The probate court appointed counsel for the respondent’s former client and ordered that an equity petition be filed against the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent obtained the necessary documentation and accounted for the funds in dispute. In July 1999, the equity complaint against the respondent was settled to the guardian’s satisfaction with the payment by the respondent of $60,000 to the guardianship estate.
The respondent’s failure to maintain adequate records of his handling and disposition of the mother’s funds during the conservatorship, of the mother’s estate’s funds and of the client’s separate funds, and his failure to properly account for the clients’ funds violated Canon Nine, Disciplinary Rules 9-102(B)(3) and (4).
The respondent’s conduct in charging the client for non-legal work at his legal rates and in charging excessive fees violated Canon One, Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(6) and Canon Two, Disciplinary Rule 2-106(A).
This matter came before the Board on December 9, 2002, on a stipulation of facts and disciplinary violations and a joint recommendation for discipline by public reprimand. The Board accepted the parties’ recommendation and imposed a public reprimand.
