CHARLESTON – The state Supreme Court has agreed to annul the law license of a Harrison County attorney who misappropriated a client’s funds for nearly two years.
The Justices issued their opinion November 14 against Robert L. Greer, agreeing with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel which recommended the annulment despite the Hearing Panel Subcommittee of the Lawyer Disciplinary Board suggested a six-month suspension.
“Mr. Greer’s habitual, blatant, and knowing misappropriation of his clients’ funds rendered serious harm not only to his clients but to the legal profession as a whole,” the opinion states.
Greer
| File photo
According to the ruling, Greer filed a partition suit on behalf of Tammera L. Faris in Harrison Circuit Court on February 27, 2020, to force the sale of a property jointly owned equally by Faris and two other people. The property was sold with gross proceeds of $178,776.01. That was deposited into Greer’s Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Account (IOLTA) account on May 10, 2021, and checks were written to the three parties for their shares.
When one of the three owners – Christa L. Grega – tried to deposit her check, it was returned for insufficient funds.
“Grega immediately contacted Mr. Greer’s office to report the fact that the check written from the IOLTA account had bounced,” the ruling states. “Mr. Greer testified that he spoke with Ms. Grega and that he told her he would ‘make it good.’ Thereafter, Mr. Greer obtained a bank loan, deposited funds into the IOLTA account and wrote multiple checks out of that account to Ms. Grega.”
Grega filed the complaint with the LDB on December 10, 2021, alleging the check she had received from Greer had been returned to her for insufficient funds. Greer, through counsel, filed a written self-report on February 1, 2022, admitting the issues and saying he hired a bookkeeper to audit his IOLTA account to ensure it was reconciled and balanced.
On December 1, 2022, Greer gave a sworn statement to the ODC admitting he moved money out of his IOLTA account to cover some expenses and that he had not reconciled the IOLTA account for over a decade. He also said he kept track in his head as to how much money in the account was his and how much belonged to his clients. He also later testified funds transferred from the IOLTA account to his operating account from January 2020 to November 2021 were either for earned funds or to cover operating expenses, but that he lacked any documentation that could distinguish between the two.
On February 15, 2023, the LDB issued a statement of charges against Greer for committing two violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct by wrongfully commingling, misappropriating and converting funds belonging to a client or a third party to his own use and for commingling his personal funds with client funds.
“Based upon the record before it, the HPS determined that Mr. Greer violated the duties owed to a third party, to the public, to the legal system, and to the profession,” the ruling states. “It found that ‘(Mr. Greer) mishandled his IOLTA account for many years. Every time (Mr. Greer) converted money from his IOLTA account to his office operating account without performing the proper accounting, he breached his fiduciary duty.’
“Further, the HPS found Mr. Greer acted knowingly in misappropriating client funds. … He engaged in this conduct over the course of many years, which ultimately included using the funds of a third party to cover his expenses for a period.”
The HPS said Greer’s conduct brought the legal system and legal profession into disrepute.
“Even if the instant proceeding may have involved a singular bounced check, there was a much greater potential for harm from (Mr. Greer’s) actions,” the ruling states.
While annulment is the general sanction imposed in this type of case, the HPS said Greer’s “personal actions to correct and self report may call for disciplinary action short of annulment of his law license.” It suggested the six-month suspension, six hours of Continuing Legal Education in law office management, the continued use of a bookkeeper to ensure IOLTA funds are properly utilized and to pay costs of the disciplinary proceedings. But the ODC objected.
“Negligence involves the failure to take adequate steps to ensure compliance with an ethical duty,” Chief Justice Tim Armstead wrote in the majority ruling. “Greer’s actions go far beyond mere negligence. He knowingly utilized funds rightfully belonging to his clients for his own use. His actions do not constitute mere carelessness or negligence. …
“Protecting and ensuring the proper payment of funds belonging to clients is a fundamental and basic ethical duty of all attorneys licensed to practice in West Virginia. The formation and proper operation of an IOLTA account represents a key protection of funds rightfully belonging to clients against comingling and misappropriation.”
The Justices say Greer’s actions “cast a pall upon the legal system and profession and undoubtedly caused significant damage to lawyers’ reputation with the public.”
“Were we to apply a less severe sanction than annulment under the facts of this case, such action would represent a sharp departure from our prior cases – a departure not warranted in this case,” the court ruling states. “Mr. Greer knowingly took monies from multiple clients over the course of numerous years, which resulted in actual and potential injury to Ms. Grega as well as potential injury to scores of his clients. Mr. Greer’s actions were not mere deviations from the standard of care, resulting in negligence.”
Justice Bill Wooton disqualified himself from the case, and Judge R. Craig Tatterson heard the case in his place. Tatterson and Justice John Hutchison dissented.
In their dissent, Hutchison writes that he disagreed with the majority opinion “because of its disrespect and disregard for the Hearing Panel’s judgment and discretion.”
“In my three decades on the bench, I have learned that justice often requires a touch of mercy,” Hutchison wrote. “Every case comes before a judge on unique facts, and any sanctions or relief must be tailored to the person who faces judgment. Being a judge requires the exercise of judgment, of discretion, within the guidelines of rules and the law.
“All of this exists within a universe where people are expected to err, learn from their mistakes, and be given second chances. When guidelines become nothing more than edicts handed down from on high, judging descends into nothing more than the ruthless exercise of an administrative stamp.
He says the record does not show Greer intentionally misappropriated client funds “for his own amusement.”
“Rather, the record shows Mr. Greer was careless, reckless even, in his management of his IOLTA and business bank accounts, and that he balanced his accounts in his head rather than through an accountant,” Hutchison wrote. “For this, the Hearing Panel found Mr. Greer violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, but that his contrition, voluntary restitution, and expenditure of funds and effort to avoid future mishandling of funds worked together to compel a reduced sanction. …
“But the court rejected that sanction, and in so doing rejected the years of legal experience and real-world judgment of the members of the Hearing Panel Subcommittee. … The majority opinion dismisses that recommendation outright, as well as dismisses its own disciplinary rules that require consideration of legitimate mitigating factors, and it reads its own ‘general rule’ syllabus point as unquestionable, black-letter law handed down by a higher authority.
“Respectfully, I do not believe justice was achieved in this case, and I would have given more deference to the Hearing Panel’s recommendation.”
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number 23-82 (Lawyer Disciplinary Proceeding 21-02-430)