Meacham, Matter of, 45S00-9201-DI-3

• Decision Date: 16 March 1994
• Docket Number: No. 45S00-9201-DI-3,45S00-9201-DI-3
• Citation: 630 N.E.2d 564
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court
• Parties: In the Matter of Jerald S. MEACHAM.

Page 564

630 N.E.2d 564

In the Matter of Jerald S. MEACHAM.

No. 45S00-9201-DI-3.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

March 16, 1994.

Jeffrey D. Todd, Indianapolis, IN, for Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Com'n.

DISCIPLINARY ACTION

PER CURIAM.

The Respondent here, Jerald S. Meacham, was charged by a three-count Amended Verified Complaint for Disciplinary Action with several violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law. This Court appointed a Hearing Officer pursuant to Ind. Admission and Discipline Rule 23, Section 11(b) who, after full hearing, tendered to this Court his findings of fact and conclusions of law. Although the Respondent had actual knowledge of the time, date, and place of hearing, he failed to appear. Following hearing, Respondent was suspended from the practice of law pending this Court's final resolution of this matter, pursuant to Admis.Disc.R. 23(15)(b).

Both the Respondent and the Disciplinary Commission have petitioned this Court for review of the Hearing Officer's report, the Commission contending that the Hearing Officer failed to find several undisputed facts adduced during hearing, and the Respondent challenging both the factual findings and conclusions of law contained in the report.

Upon review of the matters now before this Court, we find that Respondent was admitted to the Bar of this state on May 31, 1979, and is therefore subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of this Court. Under Count I, we find that Jewell L. James ("James") retained Respondent to represent her, pursuant to a contingency fee agreement, regarding injuries and property damage she suffered in an automobile accident. Respondent negotiated a settlement with Allstate Insurance Company ("Allstate"), James' carrier. In accordance therewith, Allstate distributed three checks to Respondent: a draft for $345.48, dated September 30, 1990, payable to James; and two drafts in the amounts of $1,654.52 and $5,000.00, respectively, payable to Respondent and James, on November 1, 1990. Respondent deposited all three drafts in his personal non-trust account, resulting in that account reflecting a balance of $7,000.00 on November 20, 1990. Respondent negotiated the jointly-payable checks by forging James' signature. Between mid-November and December 5, 1990, Respondent drew checks on the account for $500.00, $2,000.00, $100.00, $100.00, $95.00, $182.00, $500.00, $200.00, $335.00, $385.00, and $100.00, each for cash or personal expenses. James never authorized the distribution of any settlement proceeds. On December 5, 1990, Respondent's personal account posted a negative balance of $1,939.46.

During December, 1990, James twice unsuccessfully attempted to learn the status of the settlement negotiations. She finally learned, through Allstate, that Respondent had received the settlement proceeds. During a January 28, 1991 meeting, Respondent told James that the proceeds were in his account, but that he preferred to settle business with clients using certified checks. James has never recovered any of the $7,000.00 settlement proceeds from Respondent.

The facts clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent violated Ind. professional Conduct Rule 1.3 by failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness while representing a client; that he violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) by placing settlement proceeds in his personal non-trust account; and that he violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(b) by failing to promptly notify his client that the proceeds had been received, and to timely distribute them to her. Furthermore, Respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) by committing a criminal act, the conversion of funds, which reflects adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness as a lawyer in other respects. His forgery of James' signature constitutes a criminal act involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation, violative of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) and (c).

Under Count II, we find that Sam Rizzo ("Rizzo") retained Respondent in November, 1990, to pursue a claim arising out of an automobile accident. Rizzo suffered injuries and as a result accumulated medical bills in the amount of $4,222.50. The parties executed a fee agreement as consideration for Respondent's services. Respondent negotiated a settlement with State Farm Insurance Company ("State Farm") for $12,600.00, which was paid with two checks. The first, dated December 19, 1990, was for $600.00, payable jointly to Rizzo and his mother. The second draft was for $12,000.00, received February 19, 1991, and payable jointly to Rizzo and his wife. Respondent forged the payees' signatures on both drafts and deposited the funds into his personal account at Gainer Bank. By March 8, 1991, the balance of the Gainer account had fallen to $4,163.53, despite the fact that Respondent distributed none of the settlement proceeds to Rizzo.

In April, 1991, Rizzo contacted State Farm and learned that Respondent had received and negotiated the settlement checks. In mid-April, Respondent showed Rizzo checks made payable to various health care providers, and told Rizzo that he would mail them. Respondent did not tender any settlement proceeds to Rizzo, but assured him that a check for the proceeds was forthcoming. Despite these assurances, neither Rizzo nor any health care provider ever received proceeds from Respondent. Rizzo subsequently confronted Respondent, whereupon Respondent gave Rizzo a check, which later proved to be non-negotiable. After that, Respondent failed to tender to Rizzo any settlement proceeds, despite repeated promises to the contrary.

Respondent's repeated failures to tender settlement proceeds to his client and to health care providers violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3. Respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) by depositing client funds in his personal bank account, and Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(b) by failing to promptly notify his client that settlement proceeds had been received, and to promptly deliver them to his client. Further, by committing the criminal acts of forgery and conversion, Respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b). Such action demonstrates fraudulent and deceitful conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice and violative of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) and (d).

Under...