Latest Scandal! Comic Book Dealer Disbarred As Lawyer!!!!

[Sal]

 

I think what most of us are trying to determine here is intent. Did Doug intend to rip people off, did Doug intend to help his clients evade child support etc.

 

My honest opinion is that he, like many of us, rationalized what he did when it was happening. Like "I'm only going to borrow the money for a few days, he's not doing anything with it right now. They'll never miss it." Then when he couldn't pay back immediately, the situation deteriorated. I don't think Doug ever meant to deliberately hurt anyone, only to help his clients and to help himself buy books. That doesn't excuse the effects of his actions, because he disregarded the consequences of his decisions. That's why the code for lawyers is there, to protect the public from such actions. He chose not to follow the code and faced the consequences by the bar and subsequently, his true love - comics, will suffer some as a result as well.

 

So there was probably no malice in Doug's intent and Doug's a nice guy so some choose to stand by him as their friend, which I can understand. Doug's track record for the past 2 years has been good according to his customers, so that's a start. I still am concerned that some of his pattern of getting into financial problems may trickle over into his business. Anyone that's been disbarred for financial malfeasance (is that the right word?) should have a spotlight placed on them for a long time, no matter what their current profession.

 

48 hours of thinking about this has given me some clarity on this issue. I'm still disappointed and saddened by the situation as are most here on the boards. I don't hold any grudge personally against Doug and it's my hope that he'll get thru this and be even more open about his business practices than he already is.

 

And remember, those who are saying that he has done his penance, Doug chose to do what he did, and now he has to live with the backlash of what he chose. Fair or not.

I get the feeling there's a huge interpretation gap between readers who know the person personally and those who don't. Either that or there's a different website with the disbarment facts.

 

I'm assuming legal wording is chosen very carefully to communicate precisely with other legal professionals. That documents get archived and become legal history for future review. Is this a wrong assumption?

 

"citing the intentional conversion of funds of an elderly client". Doesn't that speak to wether there was intention or not, using the word "intentional"?

 

I was thinking the opposite of what I'm reading would be an immediate response by the lawyer to the discovered mistake. Like taking immeditate ownership of the error, deep apologies, immediate corrective actions, heartfelt regret and more apologies. From what I read it sounds like a distant relative (a niece) had to step up and become an advocate and threaten the lawyer with exposure "to the bar association", only then, AFTER "almost two years" of avoidance something was finally done. And that's just a single client, while "misappropriating escrow funds of 22 other clients".

 

This is the website I'm reading. web page

Am I just reading it wrong or is there another website???

 

no, that sounds about right.

 

i think there are people arguing from a personal perspective, and other people arguing from a dispassionate persepective. never a good thing, as this thread may demonstrate

[Timulty]

Please God. Smite this thread for it has run its course!!!!!

[Red Hook]

One other thing I would be curious knowing....from all you lawyers out there....

 

I have to assume from your positions in this thread that you would never take on a client who had a previous record of wrongdoing.

 

I mean, from an ethical standpoint, you would only do business with folks who had never done anything wrong in the past, right?

 

Brad,

 

For what it's worth, here's my take on your question.

 

It would depend on the type of law I'm practicing. For example, if I'm a criminal defense lawyer, I'd be broke and starving if I waited around for a client who had no previous record of wrongdoing. On the other hand, for the type of law I actively practice, corporate securities, I actually have an affirmative duty to report suspicious unethical behavior, or else I face sanctions from the SEC. So I'd be more wary of a client with a history of previous wrongdoing.

 

But, I think your question doesn't apply to Doug's situation. Being a lawyer is like being a graphic artist: they're both service industries. We probably don't know the complete background of our clients, but that doesn't really matter. As long as there's a good working relationship between client and service provider, the work relationship is fine.

 

I think a more appropriate question is this:

 

Would you hire an ex-con for your business, or for a job? If you're a auto repair business owner ( Nikos), would you hire someone who has completed his prison sentence and is out on parole?

 

The answer to that question is personal to each individual. No right or wrong answer.

 

Yes, exactly. I'm not defending Doug's actions in the least. In the least. I'm appalled at the visciousness and the ugliness of this hyper-pileup. More discretion should have been used in presenting this information. More professionalism. If the same info had been introduced about Scott or Brian or Mark I would have stood by them until I got more details. That's the way I am. I'm just saying slow the helll down! If news like this came to me about any one of you, I would have given you the consideration of making a call to you before I blew it all over the boards. I would have given you that simple courtesy before I dragged your reputation all over the floor.

 

 

And I'm scratching my head again about being labeled a "liberal" for the second time in this thread.

 

Anyway, I've said all I want to say in this thread. Let the posturing and thrashing continue.....

[Darthdiesel]

And I'm scratching my head again about being labeled a "liberal" for the second time in this thread.

 

You should never take anything I say about you seriously

[mica]

And I'm scratching my head again about being labeled a "liberal" for the second time in this thread.

 

You should never take anything I say about you seriously

He must have thought you were someone else.

 

 

 

[The Black Hand ®]

Let me see if I can get this right, public information was disseminated on these boards about the wrongdoings of an individual connected to these boards and the messengers are being attacked for releasing this public information which can help to safeguard other individuals or at the least help them to make an informed choice? This seems to be a typical pattern in our country today.

[Darthdiesel]

All bearers of bad news should be killed immediately. It's just keeping with a time honored tradition.

[qualitycomix]

All bearers of bad news should be killed immediately. It's just keeping with a time honored tradition.

 

[october]

before I dragged your reputation all over the floor.

 

He dragged his own reputation across the floor when he committed 40+ disbarrable offenses. Asking people to muster outrage for how the information was presented is ludicrous. Outrage should be going in one direction and towards the guys who brought this out isn't it.

 

Listen, I think it's admirable that you are sticking up for your friend, but in light of your past.... zealousness....in outing fraud in this community I would advise you to choose your words carefully. You have torn people a new one for things like this. Defending one here maybe doesn't seem so consistent, no matter how you spin the personal vs professional angle.

[Red Hook]

That's a fair criticism October.....as I pm'd to Darth I started out trying to simply explain that after weighing what I knew so far, I personally would continue to deal with Doug....since so far there is no evidence that his transgressions as a lawyer are being manifested in his dealings with Pedigree. I didn't mean to present it as anything more than a personal choice, and was not trying to convince anyone to come over to "my side" of things.

 

I am still determined to put the hairy eyeball on what I consider unethical practices in the comic collecting hobby. It's always been about providing buyers with more information. I'm not saying this stuff about Doug should never have come out. It was just the speed with which the meat was ripped from his still warm carcass that amazed me. I know Doug presses and I know Doug resubs. That's public knowledge. To many buyers, that doesn't bother them.

 

I don't think pressing or resubbing could ever be halted. Alot of the damage has already been done. From a practical standpoint, I've been more concerned with making the public aware that the practice is out there. At this point, if I only dealt with any dealer who had never pressed and resubbed, then I could do all my buying in the nearest elevator.

 

Brad

[FFB]

What's a hairy eyeball.

[Rickdogg]

What's a hairy eyeball.

 

[VintageComics]

Is it too late for a group hug?

 

Not in a Brokeback Forum kinda way....

 

Ya filthy animals.

 

Ze-

Not that there's anything wrong with that..

[The Less Blob]

"One is for YOUAR money. The other is holding OTHER PEOPLES MONEY. Whats so hard about that?

 

and to a previous poster, how can an escrow have to pay 9%?? thats more than any account can earn anyehere???"

 

First point: yes and no. He deposits this money in escrow, but he takes out his 1/3 (assume a personal injury contingency case) and reimbursement for expenses, assuming he didn't have the settling party cut separate checks (which they usually won't do given that they likely won't be privy to the specifics of a retainer) he's then supposed to cut the client a check for the remainder, explaining what he took for himself, etc. At least that's how I think it works. This isn't instant, I suppose a week or two isn't unreasonable before you cut the client a check. Maybe even at the end of the month.

 

Hypothetical scenario: So let's say he deducts 50% from the settlement than his usual 1/3 because he needs a little extra to pay the phone bill. His intention is to simply delay paying the client until he gets the money to pay the client what he owes them. When some more money comes in, he can give the client what they're owed. Problem is, you do this every month, aside from being a big-time ethics violation, perhaps you wind up finding yourself more and more behind. It really is borrowing from Paul to pay Peter. But in the process, by "borrowing" this client money and commingling with his own to pay bills, he has violated more rules.

 

Second point: 9%, I believe, is the statutory interest rate applied to judgments, etc. in New York. Cooked up at a time when rates were higher and not changed since then. Whether it would applied in this situation, I'm not 100% certain, but I'd try to get it were I suing him..

[Silver Surfer]

Lets just take a deep breath for a minute. How many of those who proclaim to be on the moral high ground still have bid on Heritage auctions given the scuttlebutt about Halperin's past. I think many of us, including myself.

 

If people don't want to deal with Doug going forward that's fine but I don't think its necessary to turn this into another boring Law 101 session.

[Red Hook]

What's a hairy eyeball.

 

The hairy eyeball?

 

The critical laser beam. The stink look. The look of loathe. The evil eye.

 

If you've ever been divorced, you know what I mean.

 

B

[Fan4Fan]

What's a hairy eyeball.

 

The hairy eyeball?

 

The critical laser beam. The stink look. The look of loathe. The evil eye.

 

If you've ever been divorced, you know what I mean.

 

B

 

Shhhh.............. he's a newlywed.

 

Don't give him any more head's up than we had.

[OldGuy]

How many of those who proclaim to be on the moral high ground still have bid on Heritage auctions given the scuttlebutt about Halperin's past. I think many of us, including myself.

 

I admit it. I bid on and won a $35 raw comic in the last two years on Heritage.

[Sal]

How many of those who proclaim to be on the moral high ground still have bid on Heritage auctions given the scuttlebutt about Halperin's past. I think many of us, including myself.

 

I admit it. I bid on and won a $35 raw comic in the last two years on Heritage.

 

say fifty Hail Marys and twenty five Our Fathers, plus two months of no "Clintons" as penance

[nik]

What's a hairy eyeball.

 

The hairy eyeball?

 

The critical laser beam. The stink look. The look of loathe. The evil eye.

 

If you've ever been divorced, you know what I mean.

 

B

 

 

The look your wife gives you knowing you got busted for cheating