In re: Jeffrey Gene Poole
This week’s only slip opinion, In re: Jeffrey Gene Poole, Attorney at Law, is a weird tale at nearly every point. The story starts with Poole taking on a construction case for Joseph Matlock. After paying Poole $1,500, Matlock is unable to afford his mounting legal bills. Nevertheless, Poole continued to litigate the case and in the end Matlock won. However, the judgment was not enough to pay off Poole in full. Due to some sloppy accounting, though, Poole continued to bill Matlock for $16,000 instead of a more accurate $8,200.
In order to settle the debt, Poole agreed with Matlock to have Matlock do some ditch work on some property that Poole held as an investment. Poole estimated the work would cost about $4,500. Matlock’s final bill for the work, though, came to roughly $26,500. During this period, Matlock had worked with a different lawyer on an unrelated matter and came to the conclusion that Poole was withholding money from him. The combination of the resulting mistrust and the significant difference in the cost of the ditch destroyed whatever was left of a working relationship between Poole and Matlock.
Several months later, Matlock’s new lawyer negotiated with Poole to settle the bill for the ditch work. Poole agreed to pay up in the next week, but did not pay for two months. As a result, this comedy of financial errors and miscommunication bubbled over into discipline hearing.
The Bar charged Poole with 10 counts of misconduct but dropped four before they were heard. Four of those counts were sustained by the hearing examiner who subsequently recommended a six-month suspension. The review board introduced another aggravating factor – a previous disciplinary record – and upped the recommended suspension to a full year. (The vote was 9-2 with one vote for disbarment and one for a reprimand.) The supreme court, upon review, found two of the remaining four counts to be without merit and suspended Poole for six-months.
The remaining two misconduct charges are as follows:
- Poole recreated a May invoice in October and told his client’s new lawyer that the bill was the original. (The May bill was inconsistent with previous and subsequent bills, but it was verified by his client as the actual May bill.)
- Poole improperly accounted for the funds received at the end of Matlock’s lawsuit.
The majority justifies a suspension on the first count alone since it involved falsifying evidence. I can agree that falsifying evidence deserves a strong sanction because the truth of evidence presented by lawyers is essential for the proper functioning of our system, but six-months seems harsh in this case where the harm is more imagined than real. The majority, through Justice Bridge, justifies this length of time primarily upon a stated ideal that no suspension should be for fewer than six months. Madsen seizes on this week logic in her dissent, but by that time she has used almost all her energy and only cites four recent cases where the court issued shorter suspensions.
The centerpiece of Madsen’s dissent is an attack upon the standard of review used by the majority. Bridge asserts that the court will sustain findings of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence. Madsen cites 25 cases in support of her view that the proper standard is a “clear preponderance” of evidence, which would likely defeat the first of the two final charges against Poole leading to a reprimand instead of a suspension.
In the end, I feel sorry for everyone involved in the case. Also, I wish that Justice Bridge had addressed Madsen’s dissent more clearly.
Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.