| Case Digest |
During the course of representation in debt collection matters, Respondent signed verifications and attached them to complaints without having reviewed the complaints to confirm their accuracy before filing. He also signed complaint verifications on behalf of clients when the collection agency or client did not timely return signed verifications provided by Respondent, and stated in complaints that original documents were attached when in fact the attachments were summaries prepared by Respondent’s office. However, no intentionally false pleadings were filed, and Respondent did not attempt to disguise his signature to conceal his wrongdoing.
The Board considered that Respondent had concentrated his practice in debt collection for 25 years. The methodology he employed in his practice had been taught to him by the name founders of a law firm at which Respondent had worked. Respondent testified that he understood and regretted any problems he created by his flawed procedures, never knowingly or intentionally lied, and made substantial changes in his office as a result of this proceeding to eliminate the risk of future problems. Respondent presented excellent evidence of good character for the traits necessary to be an attorney and had no record of discipline. |
