Bipolar Lawyer Who Stole: Suspended, Not Disbarred
Ethics
An attorney will not be disbarred for misappropriating client's funds during a manic bipolar episode that lasted for 4 years, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled in a 4-3 decision.
Mark Belz was diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 1975 and had been on medication since 1981, until a doctor discontinued it because he felt Belz no longer needed it, the judges found. Belz then went on a 4-year manic episode, which caused him to withdraw funds from a client's trust account to pay his mortgage and law firm's bills.
The court majority found that disbarment was not appropriate, given Belz's illness, his self-reporting of the incidents, his extensive recordkeeping of the withdrawals, his voluntary repayment of the money, and the fact that his clients chose to remain with him after learning of his actions. The majority found an indefinite suspension of his license with no leave to apply for reinstatement for 3 years was a more suitable punishment. Belz sought a stayed suspension.
"Our profession relies intrinsically on the trust that clients are willing to place in their lawyers, and few acts of misconduct have the capacity to erode that trust more quickly and thoroughly than the conversion of a client's funds to one's own use," Chief Justice Laura Denvir Stith wrote for the majority. "Even when such conduct is recorded properly and undertaken in a manic state, as it was here, this Court condemns this conduct in the strongest possible terms. Mr. Belz acted with a dishonest and selfish motive in taking his clients' funds, he did so multiple times, and he had substantial experience with the law. A stayed suspension is simply not appropriate for this type of misconduct."
Three judges disagreed and voted for disbarment. In the minority opinion, Judge Michael A. Wolff wrote that stealing is stealing.
"If there are certain immutable rules, then surely this is one: Lawyers may not steal from their clients," Wolff wrote. "Not even borrowing without permission with the intention of repaying - it is still stealing. A license to practice law is not a license to steal. We should not give cynics, who may believe otherwise, any support for their wrong-headed view - regardless of mitigating circumstances. There are in fact no mitigating circumstances: no medical or psychiatric excuse mitigates this behavior. Lawyers must be held to this standard of honesty despite their individual circumstances."
Related listings
-
Judge Blasts Curbing Frequent ADA Filer
Ethics 04/10/2008The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has again upheld a “vexatious litigant” order against a frequent filer of disability discrimination lawsuits -– but over the strenuous objections of nine dissenting judges.Chief Judge Alex Kozinski was particular...
-
Op-ed: Standing Up for Rule of Law in Pakistan
Ethics 04/08/2008We have witnessed with admiration and empathy the heroism of lawyers and judges in Pakistan as they squarely faced beatings and stood up to soldiers and police to defend the rule of law. Thedissolution of the Supreme Court, the silencing of a f...
-
Improper Handling of Client Trust Accounts
Ethics 04/07/2008Managing money is always tricky, especially when it belongs to someone elseThat's why, in 2006 alone, more than 20 lawyers found themselves before the State of Michigan Attorney Discipline Board after having grievances filed against them for mismanag...

USCIS Will Begin Accepting CW-1 Petitions for Fiscal Year 2019
On April 2, 2018, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will begin accepting petitions under the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)-Only Transitional Worker (CW-1) program subject to the fiscal year (FY) 2019 cap. Employers in the CNMI use the CW-1 program to employ foreign workers who are ineligible for other nonimmigrant worker categories. The cap for CW-1 visas for FY 2019 is 4,999.
For the FY 2019 cap, USCIS encourages employers to file a petition for a CW-1 nonimmigrant worker up to six months in advance of the proposed start date of employment and as early as possible within that timeframe. USCIS will reject a petition if it is filed more than six months in advance. An extension petition may request a start date of Oct. 1, 2018, even if that worker’s current status will not expire by that date.
Since USCIS expects to receive more petitions than the number of CW-1 visas available for FY 2019, USCIS may conduct a lottery to randomly select petitions and associated beneficiaries so that the cap is not exceeded. The lottery would give employers the fairest opportunity to request workers, particularly with the possibility of mail delays from the CNMI.
USCIS will count the total number of beneficiaries in the petitions received after 10 business days to determine if a lottery is needed. If the cap is met after those initial 10 days, a lottery may still need to be conducted with only the petitions received on the last day before the cap was met. USCIS will announce when the cap is met and whether a lottery has been conducted.