Careers

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

Experience

Innovation

Interactive Maps

Locations

About

Pages

Meet our team of innovators
Ask us how we do it

Professionals

Insights

Services

Thompson Hine LLP, a full-service business law firm with approximately 400 lawyers in 11 offices, was ranked number 1 in the category “Most innovative North American law firms: New working models” by The Financial Times and was 1 of 7 firms shortlisted for The American Lawyer’s inaugural Legal Services Innovation Award. The firm has been recognized by the National Law Journal as a Legal Technology Trailblazer and featured by Bloomberg for its innovative service delivery models, which drive accuracy and predictability. The firm’s commitment to innovation is embodied in Thompson Hine SmartPaTHTM – a smarter way to work – predictable, efficient and aligned with client goals. For more information, please visit ThompsonHine.com and ThompsonHine.com/SmartPaTH.

Home | Thompson Hine LLP

Atlanta

Chicago

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbus

Dayton

Los Angeles

Minneapolis

New York

Silicon Valley

Washington, D.C.

<img style="max-width: 100%;height: auto;max-width: 100%;height: auto" loading="lazy" class="alignright size-medium wp-image-4359" src="https://www.thelawforlawyerstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/754/2019/04/Ledger-225x300.jpg" alt="" width="225" height="300">A former part-time Ohio judge and bankruptcy trustee whose bookkeeper was convicted of stealing funds from his trust account was publicly reprimanded last week for failing to reconcile his trust account monthly and&nbsp;failing to adequately supervise his staff.&nbsp; The court&rsquo;s <a href="https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2019/2019-Ohio-1314.pdf">opinion</a> spotlights the potential legal ethics problems that dishonest non-lawyer staff can create.&nbsp;&nbsp;Below are some ways to steer clear of possible pitfalls.
Employee embezzlement
The&nbsp;respondent&nbsp;was a part-time judge, which allowed him to have a private practice, and he&nbsp;was a bankruptcy trustee for 30 years.&nbsp;&nbsp;In his bankruptcy practice, the respondent&nbsp;received significant amounts of cash from clients for legal fees and court costs.&nbsp; The respondent&rsquo;s long-time bookkeeper recorded the payments in a client ledger, but was found to have regularly converted funds for her own use rather than depositing them in the respondent&rsquo;s trust account&nbsp;or operating account.
The bookkeeper eventually left the respondent&rsquo;s office&nbsp;to work elsewhere.&nbsp; Two years later, in preparing to close his solo practice and merge with another lawyer, the respondent audited his books and discovered money was missing from his accounts.&nbsp;&nbsp;The state attorney general conducted a forensic audit and determined that over a nine-year period, the bookkeeper had embezzled more than $185,000.&nbsp; (She was later sentenced to 36 months incarceration.)
Failure to supervise and reconcile
Regularly reconciling the records of funds held on behalf of a client is a best practice, of course.&nbsp; What is not well-known is that some state versions of <a href="https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_15_safekeeping_property/">Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15(a)</a>&nbsp;(&ldquo;Safekeeping property&rdquo;) really get down to the nitty-gritty.&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/LegalResources/Rules/ProfConduct/profConductRules.pdf">Ohio&rsquo;s version</a>,&nbsp;for instance,&nbsp;specifies that lawyers must perform and retain a&nbsp; monthly reconciliation.&nbsp; The ABA/BNA Lawyers&rsquo; Manual on Professional Conduct notes that &ldquo;Most of the jurisdictions ... have gone well beyond the [Model Rules&rsquo;] paradigm and incorporated detailed recordkeeping and accounting requirements.&rdquo;
The respondent admitted that while the bookkeeper worked for him he reviewed bank statements for his trust account, but never conducted a monthly reconciliation by comparing the client ledgers with the client-trust account registers and bank statements.
In addition, the respondent stipulated that he had failed to adequately supervised the bookkeeper, violating Ohio&rsquo;s version of <a href="https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_5_3_responsibilities_regarding_nonlawyer_assistant/">Model Rule 5.3</a>&nbsp;(&ldquo;Responsibilities regarding non-lawyer assistance&rdquo;).&nbsp; Rule 5.3(b), as broadly adopted across the U.S.,&nbsp;requires&nbsp;a lawyer with direct supervisory authority over a non-lawyer&nbsp;to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the&nbsp;non-lawyer&rsquo;s conduct is compatible with the lawyer&rsquo;s own professional obligations.&nbsp;&nbsp;The rule requires us to monitor staff so their actions are&nbsp;in line with our own ethics duties; it forecloses any &ldquo;free pass&rdquo; for&nbsp;ethics violations just because an unfaithful employee under your direct supervision commits them.
The sanction here &mdash; a public reprimand &mdash; is the&nbsp;lowest level of discipline available in Ohio.&nbsp;&nbsp;The court noted that the respondent had deposited $35,000 his own funds to make up the net shortfall in his accounts after it was discovered.&nbsp;&nbsp;None of his clients lost money as a result of the employee&rsquo;s theft, and respondent had a clean disciplinary record.
The court noted other disciplinary cases from Ohio and elsewhere, however, where&nbsp;aggravating factors led to stiffer penalties, including suspension from practice.
Tips for staying out of trouble
The court here properly noted that &ldquo;delegation of work to non-lawyers is essential to the efficient operation of any law office.&rdquo;&nbsp; But on the other hand, &ldquo;delegation of duties cannot be tantamount to the relinquishment of responsibility by the lawyer,&rdquo; and &ldquo;supervision is critical in order&rdquo; to safeguard client interests.
<ul>
<li>If your jurisdiction specifies periodic account reconciliations or other kinds of detailed recordkeeping,&nbsp;it goes without saying that you should comply.&nbsp;&nbsp;Don&rsquo;t wait for a post-embezzlement forensic audit.</li>
<li>Trust but verify.&nbsp; Even long-time trusted employees&nbsp;can do bad things under some circumstances.&nbsp; Be alert&nbsp;for red flags.</li>
<li>Don&rsquo;t stop supervising.&nbsp;&nbsp;In some of the cases&nbsp;where&nbsp;lawyers received suspensions after employee thefts, they&nbsp;&nbsp;had completely relinquished control of their office functions to staff, and stayed &ldquo;oblivious&rdquo; to potential problems.</li>
</ul>
Making &ldquo;reasonable efforts to ensure&rdquo; that your non-lawyer staff adhere to your own ethics duties takes attention; don&rsquo;t fall down on the job.

core/freeform

Ethics

Legal Ethics, Professional Responsibility and the Business of Law

Employee’s theft leads to discipline for former OH judge