472 S.W.3d 549
Mo.2015Background
- In 2010 Farris received settlement funds for two clients (Client A: $197,500; Client B: $90,500) that he agreed to hold in trust to pay medical creditors and remit remaining balances to clients.
- Farris deducted fees/expenses and issued partial client checks; later audits showed roughly $93,000 that should have been held for clients/medical creditors was transferred from his trust account to his office/personal accounts and spent.
- Client A’s $31,756.11 check bounced; investigation and bank records showed trust-account funds had been siphoned—Farris produced a photocopy of a hospital check that was never sent or presented for payment.
- The Disciplinary Hearing Panel found multiple Rule violations (failure to communicate, recordkeeping failures, misappropriation, dishonesty) and recommended indefinite suspension with six months before reinstatement application; both OCDC and Farris excepted.
- On de novo review the Missouri Supreme Court found by a preponderance that Farris knowingly misappropriated client funds, failed to keep required trust records, lied to client and disciplinary counsel, and refused restitution; the Court ordered disbarment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (OCDC) | Defendant's Argument (Farris) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Farris misappropriated client trust funds | OCDC: Farris converted ~$93,000 from trust to office/personal use, causing injury | Farris: Transfers were made by (then-)wife without his knowledge; he did not knowingly convert funds | Court: Held Farris knowingly misappropriated funds; responsibility non‑delegable; inference of knowledge from missing trust records |
| Whether Farris violated recordkeeping and cooperation rules | OCDC: He failed to maintain required trust records and failed to timely respond to OCDC requests | Farris: Claimed inability to locate files and reliance on wife’s administration | Court: Held violations of Rule 4‑1.15(d)/(m) and Rule 4‑8.1; failure to keep records permits adverse inference of knowledge |
| Whether dishonesty/misrepresentation occurred | OCDC: Farris lied to Client A and produced false evidence to OCDC (photocopy of check) | Farris: Denies intent to deceive; attributes conduct to spouse | Court: Held violations of Rule 4‑8.4(c) and 4‑8.1(c); found testimony often disingenuous and that false evidence was submitted |
| Appropriate discipline for intentional misappropriation | OCDC: Disbarment is appropriate given conversion and aggravating factors | Farris: Seeks stayed suspension/probation; argues mitigating factors (spouse’s misconduct, health, client satisfaction) | Court: Held disbarment is the presumptive and appropriate sanction; no mitigating facts sufficient to avoid disbarment |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Belz, 258 S.W.3d 38 (Mo. banc 2008) (disbarment is presumptive for misappropriation absent strong mitigation)
- In re Ehler, 319 S.W.3d 442 (Mo. banc 2010) (conversion of client funds involves deceit and violates Rule 4‑8.4(c))
- In re Mentrup, 665 S.W.2d 324 (Mo. banc 1984) (restitution is not a defense to misappropriation charges)
- Matter of Williams, 711 S.W.2d 518 (Mo. banc 1986) (lawyer remains responsible for acts of nonlawyer agents/spouse regarding trust accounts)
- In re Fenlon, 775 S.W.2d 134 (Mo. banc 1989) (office‑account disbursements reducing balance below client funds support misappropriation finding)
- Matter of Wilson, 409 A.2d 1153 (N.J. 1979) (misappropriation of client funds is particularly reprehensible and undermines public trust)