{"id":4785,"date":"2004-04-14T13:34:48","date_gmt":"2004-04-14T17:34:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2004\/04\/14\/carolyn-wont-like-this\/"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:58:53","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:58:53","slug":"carolyn-wont-like-this","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2004\/04\/14\/carolyn-wont-like-this\/","title":{"rendered":"Carolyn Won’t Like This"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

Not only have New York lawyers been doing less<\/A> pro bono<\/EM> and complaining<\/A> about efforts to get them to do more, but they’ve been stealing more money<\/A> from clients, too.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
\"jailbird  As if that’s not dispiriting enough for NY bar members like myself (ret.) and Carolyn Elefant<\/A>, Carolyn will not be at all happy about the explanation of Timothy J. O’Sullivan, the executive director of the State’s Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection<\/A>, for the disproportionate amount of money stolen from client real estate, trust and estate funds by lawyers practicing within NY’s Second Department (Nassau and Suffolk Counties).  According to John Caher’s New York Lawyer\/NYLJ <\/EM>article<\/A> (04-13-04)  <\/DIV>
\n

\n

Mr. O’Sullivan attributed the imbalance to the real estate escrow problem, the size of the Second Department and the fact that it has many solo practitioners, who are more likely to steal.<\/STRONG> Agency records show that most thefts are carried out by middle-aged male attorneys working alone. Alcohol or drug abuse is often at the root of the misconduct, according to the fund.<\/EM> <\/P><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

In her MyShingle.com<\/STRONG> role as defender-in-chief of solo and small-firm lawyers, Carolyn has often complained about the bad rap solos get — and about discrimination in the discipline system against small-firm lawyers.  (See, for example her Not-So-Secret-Secret<\/EM> posting<\/A>, also published here<\/A>).  So, she will surely respond to Mr. O’Sullivan.<\/P>
\n

   let’s make this one to Cash<\/FONT><\/EM><\/STRONG>. . \"check <\/P>
\n

I’m afraid, however, that she’ll also dislike my<\/EM> take on this problem:  While many<\/EM> of the best and most honest lawyers I have known have been in solo and tiny firms (and I spent almost a decade as a solo), most<\/EM> of the least competent and least trustworthy lawyers I’ve run across have been in solo and duo firms.  And, yes, I believe there is an explanation for this phenomenon.  Solos and duos are<\/P>
\n


    \n

  1. \n
    more likely to have sloppy book-keeping than larger firms<\/DIV>
    \n

  2. \n
    far less likely to have anyone monitoring them within their firm — increasing the temptation to alleviate personal financial problems by “borrowing” from clients; and<\/DIV>
    \n

  3. \n
    often working on their own because they’ve been asked to leave larger firms or saw they had no future at such firms<\/DIV><\/LI><\/OL>
    \n
    Of course, I believe that most<\/EM> small-firmers are just as competent and honest as other lawyers.  But, in a State with 197,000 bar members (ain’t that scary!), it only takes a small discrepancy in overall professionalism, and in the opportunity to engage in misappropriation,  to result in bigger numbers in the tally sheet of offenders.  [Soon, I hope to write more on whether there is actual discrimination in the lawyer discipline system against small fry.]   Each lawyer needs to be judged on his or her own personal integrity and record, but that doesn’t mean that trends don’t exist and can’t be discussed in public.<\/DIV>
    \n