Attorney Gets Hammered With 60-Day License Suspension Over Technical Bar Violation That Harmed No One (Except Himself); Lawyer Failed To Promptly Remove His Earned Fees From Client Trust Account, Paying Business & Personal Expenses Out Of His Own Money Using Trust Checks

Anyone wondering how strictly attorney regulatory bodies will enforce client trust account rules against their members may find the following story of some interest, courtesy of the Northern California Record:

• The California State Bar Court placed [a] San Jose attorney [] on a 60-day suspension from practicing law and gave him a two-year probation with specific requirements that include completion of the multistate professional responsibility examination.
  
  [His] failure to meet the requirements of his probation can lead to a two-year suspension.
  
  The sanction is based on [his] commingling of funds during a 10-month period in 2009. He deposited advance fees into a client trust account and failed to remove them in a timely fashion and as soon as his interest in the funds became fixed. He used the funds to pay businesses and personal expenses that included a membership to Gold’s Gym and utilities.
  
  In weighing [his] violations, the court found that although his use of funds from the client trust account indicated misuse and mismanagement, there was no evidence that he “actually endangered client funds, left insufficient funds in his account or otherwise used client funds to pay personal expenses.”
  
  Furthermore, the court found no evidence that any client was harmed, as a result of respondent’s misconduct, because the money he used was earned via fees.
  
  In its report, the court supported its decision to deviate from the standard suspension time of 90 days.
  
  “Taken together, the mitigating circumstances suggest a low risk of recidivism. [He] demonstrated remorse at the first opportunity and took significant steps to reduce potential misconduct from reoccurring. Under the circumstances, including the fact that the misconduct occurred over five years ago, and that it was isolated to one year in an otherwise discipline-free practice of over 25 years, a deviation from the 90 days minimum is appropriate.”
  
  As part of his discipline, [he] must pay $2,797 related to the cost of disciplinary proceedings.
  
  ***
  The court also gave [him] points for cooperating with the investigation and admitting to his violations rather than pushing the issue to trial, thus sparing State Bar resources.

Source: San Jose attorney suspended, given probation for commingling funds.