ILNews

Lawyer suspended for conversion, lying

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court suspended a Vanderburgh County attorney today for at least three years for committing what the court describes as the most serious of ethical breaches.

The court came to its decision In the matter of: Douglas W. Patterson, No. 82S00-0402-DI-90, as a result of Douglas Patterson's conversion of client funds, deceit in concealing his misconduct, and dishonesty with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission.

Patterson was an associate at a law firm which maintained a trust account. In 1999, Patterson and attorney Maurice Doll left the firm and started a new one. The new law firm continued to use the old firm's trust account until they established their own in May 2000.

Patterson continued to use the old trust account once the new one had been established. In August 2000, the new firm's bookkeeper discovered Patterson had written five checks to himself or on his behalf from that account in July 2000.

Patterson denied knowledge of the checks and didn't admit to writing the checks until Doll suggested they contact the police. Patterson claimed he only wrote checks out of that account in July 2000, but an audit later revealed he wrote checks to himself in April and May 2000.

Also, in January 2000, Patterson deposited his own funds into the trust account and then immediately wrote a check for the same amount to a church daycare center in order to reimburse the church for a tax debt it owed as a result of a mistake he made in handling its payroll.

Patterson eventually repaid the money he converted, most of which belonged to a single client.

When he appeared before the Disciplinary Commission, Patterson said he only wrote checks to himself in July 2000 and didn't know the funds belonged to clients, but he did admit he mixed client and personal funds in the daycare transaction. He argued the Disciplinary Commission failed to meet its burden of proof with respect to all other charges and asked for a consideration of mitigating factors.

The Supreme Court found overwhelming evidence of Patterson's conversion of funds in the trust account, that he lied when he said he didn't know the money in the account was client funds, and evidence supports the hearing officer's rejection of his credibility regarding this issue.

The high court concluded Patterson violated Professional Rules of Conduct 1.15(b), 8.4(b) and 8.4(c). Because the misconduct of converting client funds, deceit in concealing misconduct, and dishonesty with the Disciplinary Commission are among the most serious of ethical breaches, the court decided he should be suspended from the practice of law for at least three years beginning July 31.

After that time, he may be reinstated only if he pays the costs of this proceeding, fulfills his duties as a suspended attorney, and satisfies the requirements of Admission and Discipline Rule 23(4), including demonstrating genuine remorse.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT