Bloomfield Hills lawyer disbarred by ADB panel

Listen to this article

A Bloomfield Hills attorney was disbarred by an Attorney Discipline Board panel after it was found that he committed professional misconduct that included misappropriating clients’ funds.

The disbarment of Julian M. Levant, P 16592 (MiLW No. 12-100790, 1 page) was effective July 20.

The case was assigned to Tri-County Hearing Panel No. 77, which included chairperson Edward H. Pappas and members Tova G. Shaban and Kathryn J. Humphrey. Stephen P. Vella represented the Attorney Grievance Commission while Raymond J. Salloum represented Levant.

The case

The formal complaint filed by the grievance administrator on Dec. 28, 2017, included allegations of “depositing client funds in the amount of $10,500, intended to satisfy a judgment, into respondent’s business account, and commingling those funds with respondent’s personal monies, and using client funds for respondent’s own purposes,” according to the hearing panel sanction report.

It also alleged “converting, misappropriating and using for his own benefit $39,000” belonging to another client and “failing to keep two different clients properly advised in their respective matters.”

Based on Levant’s default and evidence presented at a hearing, the panel found that he committed professional misconduct by “among other things, commingling, converting and misappropriating his clients’ funds in four separate counts of the Formal Complaint,” according to the July 24 disbarment notice.

Specifically, the panel found that he failed to provide competent representation to his clients; neglected legal matters entrusted to him; failed to seek the lawful objectives of his clients through reasonably available means permitted by law and the rules of the court and rules of professional conduct; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his clients; failed to keep his clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters and to comply promptly with reasonable requests for information; and failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the clients to make informed decisions regarding their representation.

It also found that he failed to promptly payout or deliver funds that a third person was entitled to receive and failed to promptly render a full accounting of such funds; failed to promptly deliver funds to his client that the client was entitled to receive and failed to promptly render a full accounting of such funds; failed to appropriately safeguard client and third party funds by failing to maintain them in an IOLTA and/or client trust account; converted and/or misappropriated the funds provided to him by his clients, for the purpose of paying the client’s judgment owed to a third person; converted and/or misappropriated the funds provided to him by his client for the specific purpose of safekeeping from a disputed creditor; and held client and/or third person funds in a business operating account, not in an IOLTA or non-IOLTA client trust account, and commingled said funds with his own.

His prior discipline includes a two-year suspension in the mid-1990s. That matter also included allegations of misappropriating funds. Levant testified that he was not suspended for two years, according to the report.

Discipline

In following the American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the panel found that Levant’s “state of mind was knowing and intentional.” Regarding his clients, the panel found that he “failed to provide them competent representation, he failed to appear at hearings, he failed to comply with court rules pursuing an appeal, he failed to respond to a summary disposition motion, he failed to respond to a show cause order, and he failed to competently advise the clients about their legal positions for them to make informed decisions about their cases.”

One client testified that, as a result of Levant’s actions, “he cannot trust attorneys and that he felt respondent was working for the other team and abandoned him,” the report stated.

“Respondent expressed no remorse for his conduct, refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct, and expressed indifference to making restitution,” the report stated.

During the misconduct hearing, Levant noted he had been hospitalized when a client called to ask about the $39,000, but the panel stated that this issue was not raised as a mitigating factor at the sanction hearing. He also stated that he paid $3,000 toward the $39,000.

Levant also testified that the $10,500 was repaid, but the panel cited a lack of documentation other than an email from Levant’s attorney.

The panel found that disbarment is the appropriate sanction.

“The panel is cognizant of the fact that awarding damages relating to monetary disputes is not appropriate in a disciplinary case. The purpose of discipline for misconduct is not intended for punishment, but for the protection of the public, the courts, and the legal profession.”

In awarding $75,630 in restitution, the panel concluded that the record “establishes a direct connection between respondent’s misconduct and the following losses and fees incurred by respondent’s clients.”

Costs totaling $4,904.25 were assessed.

If you would like to comment on this story, email Lee Dryden at [email protected].