In the Matter of Anthony Gianacopoulos

S.J.C. Order of Indefinite Suspension entered by Justice Kafker on November 8, 2018.[1]

The respondent stipulated to an indefinite suspension for misconduct in several matters. The misconduct included misuse of client funds with intent to deprive and deprivation, neglect, failure to communicate with clients, accepting a case that he was not qualified to handle, and failure to safeguard his client’s confidential information.

SUMMARY[2]

The respondent was admitted to the Massachusetts bar on January 17, 2001. On November 8, 2018, the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County entered an order of suspension for an indefinite period retroactive to June 9, 2018. The order of indefinite suspension arose from the respondent’s misconduct in six separate matters, involving intentional misuse of client funds with deprivation, misuse and mishandling of retainers, failure to keep required financial records, knowingly passing checks for goods and services on an account that held no funds, and failure to safeguard his clients’ confidential information.

In the first matter, the respondent was retained in August 2014 to represent a client in a personal injury claim. The client’s claim settled in November 2015 for $10,000, and the respondent deposited her settlement funds into his IOLTA account. Between December 23, 2015, and January 6, 2016, the respondent intentionally misused at least $6,065.57 of the settlement proceeds due to his client and spent the funds for his personal and business use. The respondent misused these funds with the intent to deprive his client, at least temporarily, of the funds and she was deprived. The respondent finally paid the client the amount due to her in January 2016 after depositing personal funds into his IOLTA account. The respondent’s failure to promptly disburse the funds and intentionally misuse of the settlement proceeds violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.15(b), 1.15(c), 1.15(f)(1)(C), and 8.4(c). By depositing personal funds into his IOLTA account, the respondent violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.15 (b).

The second matter involved the respondent’s failure to maintain required account records. The respondent failed to keep a check register with a client identifier after every transaction, a list of every transaction and a running balance in violation of Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.15(f)(1)(B). The respondent failed to keep an individual client ledger for each client matter in violation of Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.15(f)(1)(C). The respondent failed to keep a ledger for all of his funds for bank fees and expenses in violation of Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.15(f)(1)(D). The respondent failed to perform three-way reconciliations of the account in violation of Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.15(f)(1)(E).

In the third matter, the respondent was retained in June 2016 by a property owner to advise him on a prescriptive easement across his property that a court had granted his neighbor in 2001. The respondent falsely informed his client that he had experience dealing with property law and easements, when he did not. The respondent advised his client to challenge the easement. The respondent did not advise his client in writing of the scope of the proposed representation, or the rate or basis on which the fee and expenses were to be determined, but did request and receive a $3,000 retainer to begin work. The following day, the respondent cashed his client’s check at the counter of the bank on which it was drawn. At this point, the respondent had not earned $3,000 and intentionally misused his client’s funds for his own personal and business use.

The respondent did not take steps to familiarize himself with the procedures and law applicable to the matter and did not consult with another attorney familiar with the law of easements and/or adverse possession. By the end of August 2016, the client had paid the respondent an additional $2,000 in cash. The respondent failed to deposit these funds into his IOLTA or other trust account and intentionally misused the funds for his own personal and business purposes. After receiving his client’s money, the respondent took no action of substance to challenge or remove the easement. The respondent’s fee of $5,000 for no work of substance was clearly excessive.

Beginning in the fall of 2016, the respondent failed to return the phone calls of his client or respond to requests for an itemization of his work. In July 2017, the respondent admitted to his client that he had no experience with easements. The client requested a refund of his money, which the respondent refused to do.

By accepting a representation that he was not competent to handle, by failing to represent the clients diligently and by failing to seek the objectives of his clients, the respondent violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.1, 1.2(a), and 1.3. The respondent’s failure to communicate to his clients in writing the scope of the representation and the basis or rate of the fee and expenses for which the client would be responsible violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.5 (b)(1). The respondent’s failure to deposit his client’s retainer into an IOLTA or other trust account and his intentional misuse of the unearned portion of the retainer violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.15(b), and 8.4(c). By failing to advise his client of his lack of experience in property law and failing to maintain reasonable communications with the client, the respondent violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.4(a) and (b). The respondent’s fee of $5,000 for which he performed virtually no services was a clearly excessive fee in violation Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.5(a). The respondent’s failure to refund an unearned fee violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.16(d). The respondent’s failure to provide his client with a full written accounting when requested violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.15(d)(1).

In the fourth matter, in July 2014, the respondent offered to represent a client on a charge of OUI for a flat fee of $2,500. The respondent failed to communicate to his client in writing the scope of the representation or the basis or rate of the fee and expenses for which the client would be responsible. Approximately a week after he was retained, the respondent contacted his client and advised him to take the matter to trial. The respondent requested an additional $3,000 in legal fees for a trial.

Between September 25, 2014, and January 19, 2016, the respondent did not file any motions or pleadings on behalf of his client or otherwise prepare to take his case to trial. On January 19, 2016, the client changed his plea and admitted to sufficient facts. The client requested that the respondent return the $3,000 he had advanced to the respondent specifically for a trial. The respondent refused to reimburse the funds.

On or around October 11, 2017, the client requested the release of certain documents from his file. Thereafter, the respondent failed to release the documents and failed to respond to communications from his client.

The respondent’s failure to communicate to the client in writing the scope of the representation and the basis or rate of the fee and expenses for which the client would be responsible violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.5 (b)(1). The respondent’s total fee of $5,500, given that he did not take the case to trial, was clearly excessive and thus violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.5(a) and his failure to return the unearned portion of the fee violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.16(d). The respondent’s failure to deliver file documents to the client at the termination for the representation violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.16 (e)(1) and (3). His failure to maintain reasonable communication with his client violated of Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.4(a).

In the fifth matter, between December 23, 2016 and February 24, 2017, the respondent, with the intent to defraud, did utter six checks totaling $7,164.42, on his personal bank account, knowing that he did not have any money in his account to cover the amounts on the checks. The respondent’s conduct violated G.L. c. 266 § 37 & §30(1), larceny by check over $250, and was thus in violation of Mass. R. Prof. C. 8.4 (b), in addition to (c) and (h).

In the sixth matter, on March 20, 2017, the landlord of the respondent’s office space filed a Summary Process Eviction action against him for the non-payment of rent. On April 10, 2017, the respondent signed an agreement for judgment in which he agreed to vacate his office space by Saturday, April 15, 2017. After agreeing to vacate the space, the respondent for several months left client files containing confidential information in unlocked filing cabinets that were located in areas of the building to which others had access. The respondent’s failure to make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure or access to client confidential information in the client files violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.6(c).

In mitigation, the respondent has been battling recurring depressive episodes which were exacerbated by severe sleep apnea. The respondent also suffers from attention deficit disorder.

The matter came before the Board of Bar Overseers on a stipulation of the parties agreeing to recommend an indefinite suspension from the practice of law. On October 15, 2018, the Board of Bar Overseers voted to adopt the parties’ stipulation and proposed sanction. On November 8, 2018, the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk so ordered.

Related to No. BD-2018-025

• S.J.C. Order of Temporary Suspension entered by Justice Kafker on June 5, 2018., 06/04/2018