Timothy McNamara, the office of attorney ENL thicks. �� Raymond
S Londa on behalf of respondent Esther Alvarez. THE COURT:
Thank you, Ms. Alvarez. THE COURT:^ Ms. Alvarez, you will have an
opportunity to address the Court after counsel does I and I will give
awe moment to address the Court: Mr. McNamara. �� thank you.
May it please the Court, the Office of Attorney Ethics agrees with the unanimous
decision REND testified by the disciplinary review that in which
the board knowingly miss appropriated client and escrow funds in 2 separate client
matters shall the Arias and the R case DZ warrant be her dis BARMENT as
well as that respondent should also be disbarred based upon her conduct in herpes
mail disbursements of cash to her client Ms. R a client with severe health
struggles in order to assist her with defrauding the Social Security Administration
much poured found that there is no dispute that respondent FOEGly miss
appropriated 2000 $ in client funds in the areas matter. Respondent conceded that
she did not have Ms. A authorization to take the 2000 $. She did so because
she needed to pay her mortgage. And she didn't have sufficient personal
funds to pay her mortgage without taking that money. Rerespondent's 2000 $
disbursements also of escrow funds because an attorney named Mr. Cutner
was entitled today a portion of the settlement funds due to work that he had
done on the case before he had provided the case to the respondent as a
transfer. The board concluded that respondent also committed knowing miss appropriate
of client and escrow funds in the R case. Respondent admitted that she used
Ms. R afunds without her authorization for her own personal and business
uses. Respondent was aware that Ms. R wanted her funds distributed piecemeal
in cash and respondent acquiesced to this illegal request in violation
of both R P.C. 8.4 B and R P.C. 8.4 C. During the Office of Attorney Ethics and
the ethics hearing, ROEPT provided inconsistent and varying explanations
for how she disbursed Ms. R's funds. First, claiming she transferred the funds
PR her attorney trust account to her attorney business account so that she could
provide Ms. R with cash. When confronted by the office attorney ethics
with financial record that failed to support that explanation, respondent modified
her defense and she claimed that she use hired own funds to pay Ms.
R in cash. When confronted by the Office of Attorney Ethics again with her personal
financial record to demonstrate that she didn't have sufficient funds
to support payment from her personal accounts, respondent reverted to claim that go
she transferred the funds to hire attorney business account and it was
only then that respondent admitted that she used cash for her personal and business
expenses. Additionally, drawing the office random audit of her financial
records respondent marked out entries and she omitted entries from her client
Letsch JERS. In this case, the evidence is overwhelming. Respondent admitted
during the ethics hearing that she knowingly miss appropriated a
portion of the A funds by issuing a 2000 $ check to herself. Respondent knew that
under no circumstances was she entitled to the sum of 2000. And in fact when
Ms. Arias finally signed the settlement statement at that point the
respondent additionally disbursed herself the legal fee that she was supposed
to be taking. Respondent also disbursed 84300 of Ms. R's funds and claimed
that she provide Ms. R with all by 15900 of the fund in cash. However the Office
of Attorney Ethics audit of her business and personal financial record
revealed that respondent on multiple occasions transferred funds from her attorney
trust account to her attorney business account in almost the exact amounts
that she needed to pay her personal bills. For example, respondent transferred
15200 of Ms. R's funds to her attorney business account and the '{^}beings
day she wrote a check for 15224.20 to pay her past due rent. With which she was
if she did not have Ms. R's funds she would not be able it pay much
respondent also failed to provide any evidence whatsoever that she actually provided
Ms. R with the cash. Respondent acknowledged that Ms. R suffers from
mental illness. Respondent SKROIBD her client as suffering from anxiety, that
she's bipolar and that her behavior was very erratic. Even with all those facts,
respondent kept 0 records about any monies she said that she gave Ms.
R. Ms. Jennifer Brant who was appointed by judge Crystal to serve as the GAURN
add lie testimony to represent Ms. R's interests described Ms. R as
follows: Quote she was SKRAZ enough from an emotional psychological point of
view that oldly got in the way of her members ability to understand things.
The board decided that by actively participating in a scheme to defraud
the Social Security Administration, that this was a third way that the respondent
was subject to dis barment and the attorney ethic agrees. We
respectfully agree. CHIEF JUSTICE STUART RABNER: Can you tell
us about circumstances about your ledger forms being blacked out of 14000 $.
�� yes when the Office of Attorney Ethics did the
investigation, they noted that there was blacking out of items and she did that
right before the random audit and the Office of Attorney Ethics could see
under NIEJ the black that those were 2 amounts that she done without telling
her client that she had actually taken that money and she had no explanation
for why she blacked out those records. CHIEF JUSTICE STUART
RABNER: And she admitted to blacking them out. �� she admitted
that she was the only person who handled her financial records, yes, so that
no 1 else happened her financial records that she was responsible.
THE COURT: Any other questions? THE STATE:
Thank you. Mr. THE COURT: Mr. Londa. �� if your Honors
please, last night I participated in the diversionary program course that's
offered periodically at the law center and 70 plus percent of the people
who were there were there because of recordkeeping violations. My client has
acknowledged that she did not keep good records and the 2000 that we're
talking about Mr. McNamara pointed out to you in the Arias matter remains in
my trust account. You directed that this be. And hopefully
with a decision here you will give me instructions as to how to dispose of that
money. But there was a $2000 $ mistake clearly that Ms. Alvarez has
explained she never jotted down because it was a brand new account and it's
1 of the starter checks that she used she forgot about and didn't put it in
the ledger. That money is there. I'm not here to PF pat her
on the back. I think she's made mistakes. What's interesting is that at the dis
ciplinary review board hearing, Mr. McNamara said and I want to quote from
page 6 and for the first time that I've ever seen in 1 of my hearings the
respondent actually admitted during a hearing to committing knowing
misappropriation. I take that as somewhat of a mitigating factor under
Rosenthal which I've cited, there is an acknowledgment here that she made a
mistake. Made several. But when you look at Wilson, it seems to me that this Court
has directed that a dis barment occur if the misappropriation was within
an intent to steal from or defraud from the person from whom the funds were taken.
THE COURT: I believe that's not part of our law. Indeed,
the way a decision repeats prior case law says intent to steal is not an element.
�� all right. Then I stand corrected. I want to point out
that there was no intent here on her part. I think she's made mistakes. She's
acknowledged them and I'm asking that you review the Wilson rule and put
intent as 1 of the ingredients that you consider in determining the extent of the
discipline to be imposed. The tragedy that I see here is of that this lawyer,
Ms. Alvarez, having gone through 3 years of these charges and that's
what it's been, surviving 2 attempts to have her temporarily suspended is a much
better lawyer today than 3 years ago, much more sensitive to mistake that
have been made and when we talk about protecting the public she has been continuing
to serve the public under the tutelage of a proctor which was directed by
this court and she has done that credibly with no problems and I ask on her behalf
that, yes, discipline is appropriate, clearly. But I'm asking that you
consider the circumstances under which she made mistakes she let her client dictate
to some degree 1 of the mistakes she made with respect to Social Security.
She didn't do that for her own benefit. STHE did that because the client wanted
it. I'm not saying that it was right but it certainly was in the greed on her
part and and I ask that you consider those thoughts in your assessment
of what the ultimate outcome of this should be and if there is a committee that is
reviewing the Wilson doctrine I ask that you let her fall within the ambit
of whatever conclusion that committee comes up with: I don't know if also any
question or not. THE COURT: Do you know in your client would
like it address the Court. �� I do not but I will ask her.
THE COURT: Please. �� she would hick it address the Court.
�� good afternoon your Honors and I appreciate your allowing me to the
opportunity to speak to you. I stand here before you with no excuse for what
was done. I have learned from my mistakes and perhaps there's no greater
punishment that the punishment that I impose upon myself. I
have learned that that on many occasion 1 cannot allow 1's fears, 1's reservation
to control a situation and as much as I consider myself a pretty strong
willed probably high tempered individual for many a set of circumstances, I failed
to do so when the time was appropriate. I can assure your Honors that
infarct from the richest person. My practice is dedicated to those who are far
from affluent. I have dedicate the larger part of my practice to the Spanish
speaking community who for the most part are far from affluent, but
I can assure you that what appears to be money taken from the hands of the the
people I represent I can aHUR that court that everyone has received
their funds. And in the process I have ruined my ability to potentially be employed
in the future as an attorney after many, many years. As my
attorney has expressed to you, I would ask that this court consider that are
while the case law dictates that funds were misappropriated, everyone,
those clients, have received their funds but for whatry mains in escrow with Mr.
Londa. I have in excuse and WHAFR your Honors dictates to be the final outcome,
it's something that I must sip and it's something that I must sip knowing
that it was in my hands. I appreciate you're allowing me this opportunity and
I thank you. THE COURT: Thank you Ms. Alvarez. We'll
take the matter under as every advisement.