Disclosing client secrets leads to disbarment
If a client tells her attorney about her son’s criminal behavior and
the lawyer spills the beans to law enforcement, he can be disbarred. CHARLES
J. ROTHBAUM [#54450], 59, of Henderson, Nevada, learned that lesson
the hard way when he lost his license June 26, 2005, for, among other things,
breaching a client’s confidence and compromising clients’ defenses.
The State Bar Court also found that Rothbaum committed misconduct in eight
other matters, ranging from abandoning clients to committing acts of moral
turpitude to practicing law while suspended for not paying bar dues. He owes
more than $80,000 in attorneys fees to at least six former clients, including
one who has been waiting for a refund of $22,448 for more than six years.
Rothbaum also failed to comply with a rule 955 requirement in a 2001 disciplinary
order, a violation that by itself is grounds for disbarment. He had not refunded
unearned fees to five clients, as required by the rule, and he submitted an
affidavit to the Supreme Court that contained misrepresentations.
In one of the matters, a Tulare County woman was questioned by authorities
who suspected her son and his wife were involved in two homicides. The woman
then spoke with her son-in-law, a correctional officer, and told him what she
knew. He advised her to speak to a lawyer, and then he told a detective what
he knew.
The woman contacted Rothbaum, who had previously represented her son in two
cases, and asked him to accompany her to the sheriff’s department, where
she was to be questioned further. She hired Rothbaum, paid him $1,500 and told
him what she knew about the murders. She expected Rothbaum to protect her rights
while being questioned.
Prior to the interview, Rothbaum asked to speak to a detective, to whom he
related everything his client had told him. During the conversation, he rejected
the detective’s suggestion that he had a conflict by representing all
three persons and that he was breaching the woman’s client privilege.
After giving the information to the detective, Rothbaum said, “This conversation
never happened, right?” Unbeknownst to him, it had been videotaped.
His client, her son and daughter-in-law subsequently were arrested and all
three retained Rothbaum for a $50,000 fee. He had the three sign a “conflict
waiver” without fully explaining the potential conflict to them. All
three were unaware of his conversation with the detective.
The day after they signed the waivers, Rothbaum signed a stipulation with
the State Bar admitting to misconduct in four matters, and agreeing to be suspended
for 145 days and until he paid more than $22,000 in restitution to a former
client. The suspension was not due to take effect for 30 days.
He informed the clients of his problems, but said the suspension would last
only a couple of months and convinced them to appear in court without a lawyer
while he was suspended. They agreed to do so.
At a hearing, the court appointed independent counsel for all three defendants
because of their possible conflict, but all said they wanted to stick with
Rothbaum. During their court appearance while Rothbaum was suspended, they
learned about his revelations to the detective and fired him.
He did not refund the $50,000.
Rothbaum argued that he did not fail to maintain his client’s secrets
because she had already given the same information to another person. He also
argued that he was obligated to disclose the information he had because the
woman’s son was likely to harm someone if apprehended by police.
The bar court rejected both arguments and said “the potential and actual
harm [Rothbaum] caused to his clients . . . should not be understated. [His]
indefensible misconduct . . . gravely jeopardized his clients’ criminal
cases and compromised their defenses.”
In mitigation, Rothbaum said he was suffering from extreme financial, personal
and emotional difficulties, including depression and a gambling problem. Although
the bar court expressed sympathy for his problems, it gave little weight to
them as mitigation.
|