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

[Foolkiller]

This pains me to weigh in on this. I really take no joy or pleasure in writing this, but I see from a lot of people I like and respect things like "let's wait and see" and "there's more to the story".

 

Guys, when there is a disciplinary hearing and the Court disbars you, this is not some rag tag group of guys who decided that Doug shouldn't practice law. This was a well investigated matter. Better than you, I or anyone else here is going to do. THERE IS NO OTHER SIDE TO THIS STORY! The story is Doug committed one of the gravest ethical violations you can commit as an attorney. Look, you can be convicted of crimes, do all sorts of stupid stuff and NOT GET DISBARRED. The language of the opinion is scathing. There is no "I'm an insufficiently_thoughtful_person defense". Doug offered no defense, no character witnesses aside from his father, and this was a REPEATED, WILLFUL, AND DELIBERATE pattern of behavior.

 

The reason lawyers are not allowed to comingle and misappropriate funds is because he treated clients' money like it was his own personal bank. And the risk is great that he will lose and not be able to replace it, as well as it's NOT his money.

 

If there was "another side to the story" I think Doug would have presented that in HIS FREAKIN' DISBARMENT HEARING! Look, while Doug may have been a "good guy" and friendly to you, me and everyone else, there is no way that I could ever trust him again. This pains me to say this. It pains me. I don't want to believe Doug could have been doing this. But he did. And now, just like the stand I took on Ewert, when there is clear evidence of fraud and cheating, and someone exhibits a pattern of behavior in 22 different instances, I cannot ignore it.

 

Nevertheless -- I was not going to comment publicly -- but when I saw some people that I know and like not taking this as seriously as I think it should be taken, I had to comment.

[drice6900]

This pains me to weigh in on this. I really take no joy or pleasure in writing this, but I see from a lot of people I like and respect things like "let's wait and see" and "there's more to the story".

 

Guys, when there is a disciplinary hearing and the Court disbars you, this is not some rag tag group of guys who decided that Doug shouldn't practice law. This was a well investigated matter. Better than you, I or anyone else here is going to do. THERE IS NO OTHER SIDE TO THIS STORY! The story is Doug committed one of the gravest ethical violations you can commit as an attorney. Look, you can be convicted of crimes, do all sorts of stupid stuff and NOT GET DISBARRED. The language of the opinion is scathing. There is no "I'm an insufficiently_thoughtful_person defense". Doug offered no defense, no character witnesses aside from his father, and this was a REPEATED, WILLFUL, AND DELIBERATE pattern of behavior.

 

The reason lawyers are not allowed to comingle and misappropriate funds is because he treated clients' money like it was his own personal bank. And the risk is great that he will lose and note be able to replace it, as well as it's NOT his money.

 

If there was "another side to the story" I think Doug would have presented that in HIS FREAKIN' DISBARMENT HEARING! Look, while Doug may have been a "good guy" and friendly to you, me and everyone else, there is no way that I could ever trust him again. This pains me to say this. It pains me. I don't want to believe Doug could have been doing this. But he did. And now, just like the stand I took on Ewert, when there is clear evidence of fraud and cheating, and someone exhibits a pattern of behavior in 22 different instances, I cannot ignore it.

 

Nevertheless -- I was not going to comment publicly -- but when I saw some people that I know and like not taking this as seriously as I think it should be taken, I had to comment.

 

Excellent post. To those who still feel the need to defend or kiss this guy's butt, think about this: What if it was your Grandmother, Grandfather, Mother or Father that he snookered???

[Scheradon]

This pains me to weigh in on this. I really take no joy or pleasure in writing this, but I see from a lot of people I like and respect things like "let's wait and see" and "there's more to the story".

 

Guys, when there is a disciplinary hearing and the Court disbars you, this is not some rag tag group of guys who decided that Doug shouldn't practice law. This was a well investigated matter. Better than you, I or anyone else here is going to do. THERE IS NO OTHER SIDE TO THIS STORY! The story is Doug committed one of the gravest ethical violations you can commit as an attorney. Look, you can be convicted of crimes, do all sorts of stupid stuff and NOT GET DISBARRED. The language of the opinion is scathing. There is no "I'm an insufficiently_thoughtful_person defense". Doug offered no defense, no character witnesses aside from his father, and this was a REPEATED, WILLFUL, AND DELIBERATE pattern of behavior.

 

The reason lawyers are not allowed to comingle and misappropriate funds is because he treated clients' money like it was his own personal bank. And the risk is great that he will lose and note be able to replace it, as well as it's NOT his money.

 

If there was "another side to the story" I think Doug would have presented that in HIS FREAKIN' DISBARMENT HEARING! Look, while Doug may have been a "good guy" and friendly to you, me and everyone else, there is no way that I could ever trust him again. This pains me to say this. It pains me. I don't want to believe Doug could have been doing this. But he did. And now, just like the stand I took on Ewert, when there is clear evidence of fraud and cheating, and someone exhibits a pattern of behavior in 22 different instances, I cannot ignore it.

 

Nevertheless -- I was not going to comment publicly -- but when I saw some people that I know and like not taking this as seriously as I think it should be taken, I had to comment.

 

Yes, unfortunatley I have to fully agree with you. It makes my stomach turn sour to hear someone as respected as Doug has committed these violations. If this was someone nobody liked or many had bad dealings with, I suspect he'd be getting ripped apart on here, but that's not the experiences people had with him. I imagine that many on here had and have a personal friendship with Doug (I do not know him on a personal level, although I have done business with him through Pedigree). With this in mind it must be very shocking to them to believe this and may take some time to sink in, but hopefully these people whom I also respect will not attempt to defend Doug's dishonest actions for favor of that personal friendship.

[Timulty]

As to hearing what Doug's side of the story is....the court document stated quite clearly that he could present no mitigating circumstances to explain this. I hope, that this disbarment will help him to realize the error of his ways and that it will actually force him to implement ethical business practices. But if a person has shown a pattern of behavior they are oft times doomed to repeat it. Enough said.

[Red Hook]

This pains me to weigh in on this. I really take no joy or pleasure in writing this, but I see from a lot of people I like and respect things like "let's wait and see" and "there's more to the story".

 

Hi Brian,

 

I'm not trying to minimize or dismiss the seriousness of the charges or the effects it apparently had on the clients involved. I get it. Really.

 

I'm not arguing that this isn't a really bad thing and that the action taken by the Courts wasn't appropriate. The punishment has been dealt out. I'm just talking about the fact that in my personal dealings with Doug, he's been great.

 

So for the moment, I am able to hold two conflicting points of view on this.

 

Brad

[THE_BEYONDER]

Is it safe to assume that since he had no problem ripping off little old ladies...he would not have been above trimming/pressing/manipulating comic books?

[Red Hook]

Doug's been quite open about his support of pressing.

 

Red

[chrisco37]

Is it safe to assume that since he had no problem ripping off little old ladies...he would not have been above trimming/pressing/manipulating comic books?

 

Doug never tried to hide the fact that he was not opposed to pressing books.

[osborn_fr]

When i was about 12 years old, i stole a box of candies in a store.

Did it again a few days later.

Today, i'm 35 and i still cannot believe what i have done.

Every time i think of that, i feel shame and remorse.

 

Now, am I a bad guy for this fact ?

[nik]

I think he was pretty open about that issue.

 

I still like the man, I had several good dealings buying and selling with his site, but my respect for him has just been lowered

[Crackandpresstoan11]

I was pissed that I had to pay $18 shipping and an illegal 3% surcharge on his site for a recent purchase. Now we find out he is nothing but a thief who has $$$ problems. How comfortable will people feel now about sending him books to list on his site? Sometimes this hobby makes me sick to my stomach. Seems like everyone involved is a scumbag.

[Crackandpresstoan11]

When i was about 12 years old, i stole a box of candies in a store.

Did it again a few days later.

Today, i'm 35 and i still cannot believe what i have done.

Every time i think of that, i feel shame and remorse.

 

Now, am I a bad guy for this fact ?

 

Lawyers are held to a higher standard than a 12 year old. Don't you think a grown man with a law degree should know better?

[Crackandpresstoan11]

Is it safe to assume that since he had no problem ripping off little old ladies...he would not have been above trimming/pressing/manipulating comic books?

 

Doug never tried to hide the fact that he was not opposed to pressing books.

 

Then how come he does not disclose on his site which books are known to be pressed?

[Foolkiller]

With all due respect, this is a ridiculous example. A lawyer who has been practicing for 16 years should know not to commit one of the biggest ethical violations you can. This is, albeit temporarily, stealing from your client. Plus, Doug wasn't 12!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He knew exactly what he was doing: Intentional manipulation of thousands and thousands of dollars that weren't his.

 

Brad:

 

Think of it this way. Doug was holding money for his clients while an attorney. This was a position of trust. Now you are being asked to trust him with your books and to dole out your funds appropriately. Who knows if he's playing the same games with those funds that he did when he was an attorney. We don't. The only thing we could have that he isn't playing those games is HIS WORD. And pray tell me what THAT is worth right now?

 

His clients were supposed to be able to trust him -- I know we want to believe the best of our friends -- this is more than over the line and translates directly to his business --

 

BUT: we are each to make the decisions for ourselves. I don't agree with your position Brad, but I am not here to start a pyre for Doug. Each of you now has the information that has read this, and what this means for me is, I can no longer have any association or business transactions here with Doug.

 

When i was about 12 years old, i stole a box of candies in a store.

Did it again a few days later.

Today, i'm 35 and i still cannot believe what i have done.

Every time i think of that, i feel shame and remorse.

 

Now, am I a bad guy for this fact ?

[Crackandpresstoan11]

Hey! Where is my scan?

[Foolkiller]

Tom:

 

sorry man, I've been caught up with other things and now my "free" time is here on the boards -- if you want I will actually send you the book (as it might be quicker at this point) for you to inspect... PM me.

[nik]

The people that manipulate this hobby make me sick to my stomach, and not the actual hobby.

 

There are many good people in this hobby, but we seem to dwell only on the negative ones.

 

If something positive/good happens no big deal, but when something scandelous/negative happens its always and in the spotlight.

[Foolkiller]

That's the way it is in every business and every aspect of the news etc. Fact of the matter is that people focus on it because honest business dealings should be expected, not news. When people do something outrageously bad or are discovered to have highly unethical character, well, that's something that is going to make some news.

 

The people that manipulate this hobby make me sick to my stomach, and not the actual hobby.

 

There are many good people in this hobby, but we seem to dwell only on the negative ones.

 

If something positive/good happens no big deal, but when something scandelous/negative happens its always and in the spotlight.

[BronzeBruce13]

If you are referring to me Brian... keep in mind, that I (and others here) may not be able to decipher the disbarrment synopsis quite as clearly as you can. I do not take this or any act of fraud lightly and am currently "still up" (have no slept yet) and pondering many aspects of what I read.

 

Also... as with any person I consider a friend and have found to be trustworthy in my experience, no matter what accusation comes their way, or in this case, declared facts from a thorough investigation as you put it… I would still like to speak to them with an open mind and at least hear what they have to say for themselves. If it was you this happened to (which would be about as equal the shock that I'm experiencing with Doug) I would still want to speak with you and try to better understand what happened. Did I give the same courtesy to Ewert?... to be honest, No. If I was his friend would I have doubted his guilt longer and defended him? Maybe. Are Ewert's close friends (assuming there are any) going through a similar dilemma that I am?.... Probably.

 

I guess there is an inconsistent component in judging and accepting the wrongdoing of someone you respect and consdier a friend as opposed to someone you have limited contact with. Of that, I'm surely guilty. I sure don't want to believe this is as serious as you say... but ultimately I'm not going to let that affect what I believe to be right or wrong.

 

Several things, that I'm not clear on and will ask Doug today if I'm able to speak with him... was he juggling clients funds with his own (against the legal profession rules) in an attempt to defraud his clients or did he do so to try and keep himself or his business afloat financially? Did he use the cash (however inappropriately) with every intent to put it back? Was he in fact putting it back? Not saying any of this behavior was right regardless, but I'm not clear whether any of his cleints got screwed... not paid... swindled? OR did everyone get their money.. just late... delayed. If so, was he paying everyone he owed... just slower than he should have? Was he doing this before he was reported (or however this came to the attention of the Bar).. or after?

 

Basically, I want to know if he was in debt (for whatever reason(s)) and/or made the poor judgment to take advantage of the cash flow he had available against Bar rules. If so, would that be like a treasurer of an organization taking a loan from the account with intent to put it back. It would be against the rules I'm sure, but if the cash was put back would any harm really be done except the breaking of the rule?

 

In this case, clearly some clients did not get their money as quickly as they were supposed to, particualrly that one elderly lady (and that simply sucks)... I understand that. That said... knowing Doug's intent (if that's possible) and if he was indeed making efforts to pay everyone (despite his violation of commingling) makes a big difference to me personally. In one scenario, he would be a dishonest cheat, screwing his clients over... a thief. The other, he would be trying to honor his debts/agreements albeit slower than he was supposed to in an attempt to rectify his poor decisions prior. I'm not saying the 2nd scenario casts him in MUCH better light. Nor am I saying that there was no wrong doing... but to me there's is a difference. I want to know.

 

Clearly, I'm very troubled and confused by all this. One thing's for sure... I can't take much more. Comics and the hobby in general are SUPPOSED to be fun and a distraction from the everyday cr@p we all deal with. When that same cr@p we try to avoid invades our escapism/entertainment outlet... somethings gotta' give. Right now... I'm very troubled (and clearly need sleeep)

 

Oh, by the way... there likely wont be any frogs left in the world in 5-10 years. How ya' like them apples.

 

[Foolkiller]

Bruce:

 

I took a small excerpt. Look, you can't ask Doug cause how do you know whether or not you'll get an honest answer? At least that's my take.

 

What he did was misappropriate funds for personal use. That's what's clear. I'm sure the investigating body did some research. No, his clients got their money, but apparently not in any kind of timely fashion. I'm guessing this was a robbing Peter to pay Paul situation that blew up. I'm sure once he was reported, everything got squared away. This wasn't one count, but 48 counts and 22 separate people it looks like.

 

Even if he paid everyone he knew, think about the position of trust you are in as an attorney... You cannot be manipulating money that isn't yours. It really doesn't matter what the reason was, and I suspect this was going on well before he got caught or someone complained. His clients are hurt by the fact that he doesn't get the money when they are supposed to.

 

He was in debt because of comics probably. Always needing to buy more books. If he was "just in debt" why not sell some comics -- He's sitting on a frickin' fortune yet instead he's misappropriating funds. What doesn't add up there?

 

Rectifying a past mistake? this isn't a case where you borrow money and don't pay it back right away BECAUSE THE PERSON YOU'RE BORROWING FROM HASN'T GIVEN YOU PERMISSION!!!!

 

Bruce -- I know you guys are friends -- but as I said, just imagine how seriously the bar in any state would take this -- consider how much it takes to get disbarred, consider the scathing nature of the opinion, how they judged Doug's testimony before them -- and do the math. When they looked Doug in the eye, they thought disbarment was the best option.

 

Several things, that I'm not clear on and will ask Doug today if I'm able to speak with him... was he juggling clients funds with his own (against the legal profession rules) in an attempt to defraud his clients or did he do so to try and keep himself or his business afloat financially? Did he use the cash (however inappropriately) with every intent to put it back? Was he in fact putting it back? Not saying any of this behavior was right regardless, but I'm not clear whether any of his cleints got screwed... not paid... swindled? OR did everyone get their money.. just late... delayed. If so, was he paying everyone he owed... just slower than he should have? Was he doing this before he was reported (or however this came to the attention of the Bar).. or after?

 

Basically, I want to know if he was in debt (for whatever reason(s)) and/or made the poor judgment to take advantage of the cash flow he had available against Bar rules. If so, would that be like a treasurer of an organization taking a loan from the account with intent to put it back. It would be against the rules I'm sure, but if the cash was put back would any harm really be done except the breaking of the rule?

 

In this case, clearly some clients did not get their money as quickly as they were supposed to, particualrly that one elderly lady (and that simply sucks)... I understand that. That said... knowing Doug's intent (if that's possible) and if he was indeed making efforts to pay everyone (despite his violation of commingling) makes a big difference to me personally. In one scenario, he would be a dishonest cheat, screwing his clients over... a thief. The other, he would be trying to honor his debts/agreements albeit slower than he was supposed to in an attempt to rectify his poor decisions prior. I'm not saying the 2nd scenario casts him in MUCH better light. Nor am I saying that there was no wrong doing... but to me there's is a difference. I want to know.