Gary Kadet's Business Partner Loses Law License for 2 Years
Karmic Boomerang
in the secretary of state's office for massachusetts on 28 July 1998.
What is it they say about birds of a feather?
http://www.state.ma.us/obcbbo/bd00-056.htm
NO. BD-2000-056
IN RE: DAVID WYSOCKI
S.J.C. Order (Two-year Suspension) entered by Justice Greaney on October 5,
2000, with an effective date of November 5, 2000. 1
SUMMARY 2
The respondent, a bankruptcy practitioner, stipulated to the misconduct charged
in a five-count petition for discipline.
Count One of the petition for discipline arose from six complaints from clients
whose bankruptcy cases were not filed between 1997 and 1999, four as a result
of neglect by the respondent, one because of a misunderstanding over costs, and
one because the client had moved out of state. The respondent in each instance
refunded the fees paid to the clients only after the complaint to Bar Counsel
was filed. In one instance, the respondent also failed to return the client's
file upon request until after the complaint to Bar Counsel was filed. The
respondent's conduct was in violation of Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.3, 1.4, and
1.16(d),(e).
Counts Two and Three of the petition for discipline involved financial record
keeping problems in the respondent's trust account, including commingling cash
payments from clients with personal cash and failing otherwise to maintain
adequate or complete records. Count Two arose from a complaint by clients whose
funds (mortgage payments) the respondent was holding in trust as part of a
Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan. The plan was dismissed for unrelated reasons before
the payments were remitted to the mortgagee. The respondent thereafter paid the
clients the funds that he was holding on their behalf in his trust account.
However, because the respondent had commingled certain cash payments from the
clients with his own funds, he did not show the receipt of the cash on his
client ledger and inadvertently miscalculated the balance that the clients were
due. After the complaint to Bar Counsel was filed, the respondent found the
discrepancy and reimbursed the clients for the $870 shortfall caused by his
inaccurate accounting. The respondent's conduct in this matter was in violation
of Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.15(a),(b) and its predecessor DR 9-102(A),(B)(3),(4).
Count Three arose from two notices of dishonored checks sent to Bar Counsel by
the bank in which the respondent maintained his IOLTA account. The first check
was dishonored because the respondent had by mistake failed to make a deposit.
In the second instance, several checks were dishonored because the respondent
mistakenly paid himself, as fees, sums received from clients intended to cover
both fees and costs. The respondent then paid the costs from the trust account
despite the fact that the monies needed to support these disbursements had
already been withdrawn. The dishonored checks were paid upon redeposit or
replaced. The respondent's conduct in this matter was again in violation of
Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.15(a),(b) and its predecessor DR 9-102(A),(B)(3),(4).
Counts Four and Five of the petition followed Bankruptcy Court decisions. In
the first case, described in Count Four, the judge held hearings and made
findings that the respondent had assisted a disbarred lawyer, Joseph G.
Albiani, in the unauthorized practice of law. The respondent, who viewed
Albiani as a friend and mentor, took over cases from Albiani without the
clients' consent and allowed Albiani or his staff to sign his name to pleadings
prepared by Albiani. The judge also found that the respondent became
overwhelmed by the additional caseload. He failed to maintain records of which
of Albiani's clients he had undertaken to represent or of files received from
Albiani and therefore failed to timely file pleadings or appear for hearings on
those matters. The respondent's conduct was in violation of Mass. R. Prof. C.
1.1, 1.3, 5.5(b), and 8.4(h).
The second case, described in Count Five, involved a Chapter 13 bankruptcy
filed by the respondent in which the amount of indebtedness exceeded the
jurisdictional limits. Because he did not know the amount of the government's
claim against the debtor, the respondent had listed it as "notice only" with a
schedule value of zero. The judgment in fact was for $538,000. The court found
that filing the petition without adequate factual investigation violated Rule
9011 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The respondent's conduct in
this matter was in violation of Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.1, 1.2(a), and 8.4(h).
This matter came before the Board on a stipulation of facts and disciplinary
violations and a joint recommendation for a two-year suspension. On September
11, 2000, the Board voted to accept the stipulation and to recommend the
agreed-upon disposition to the Supreme Judicial Court. The Court so ordered on
October 5, 2000.
1 The complete Order of the Court is available by contacting the Clerk of the
Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County.
2 Compiled by the Board of Bar Overseers based on the record before the Court.
TyMeDwn1st
>David Wysocki is Kadet's business partner in webmasterlegal.com, as
registered
>in the secretary of state's office for massachusetts on 28 July 1998.
<yawn>
>What is it they say about birds of a feather?
I dunno; was it something about having to stretch really far to make a fairly
specious point?
Ty
Who is mostly just
a slightly skewed
Donna Reed
Do a good deed: www.netaid.org
Help feed the hungry, for free: www.thehungersite.com