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

[esquirecomics]

None of the facts set forth in the disbarrment mean that Doug is not a nice or friendly guy. I've only met him once and spoken to him several times on the telephone (particularly to try and jointly purchase a collection), and I would certainly concur with that generic assessment of the type of person he presents himself as. Nor would I ever advocate that in light of these circumstances those of you who are friends with him should abandon him as a friend. To the contrary, he will need his friends for support now more than ever, and a good friend will still remain as such notwithstanding these circumstances.

 

Nice guys do bad things. Nice guys go to prison. What Doug did was potentially prosecutable. Most likely the District Attorney's Office declined to prosecute in light of the disciplinary proceedings and the fact that it would appear funds were returned to the clients. But not being prosecuted is not the same thing as not having committed a crime. Frankly, I encourage people to contact Doug and see if he will tell you his side of the story. If I were him, however, I would not post anything on these boards. What could he say? He can't offer information that differs from what he earlier presented. He could say he is sorry, and I am sure he is. But sorry is not enough at this stage.

 

The issue is not about is he friendly, or how smoothly did any prior comic book transaction go, it is about the level of trust that his conduct evokes and his integrity. Our ability to trust him or respect his integrity is not isolated to his actions as an attorney versus his actions as a comic book collector/dealer. His trust and integrity shift from one occupation to another unchanged. It is about what he now represents as a dealer in the hobby.

 

What Doug did, and the opinion is clear that he eventually chose not to substantively contest the allegations, is reprehensible. It was, for most of the charges, likely done deliberately and with full knowledge of what he was doing, as well as the fact that he knew it to be wrong. I cannot accept the claim that as a 16 year veteran lawyer Doug did not know the difference between how to properly maintain escrow accounts and client money and not to.

 

The primary discussion in the opinion is one of mitigation. What could Doug say to mitigate his punishment once the charges were finalized. From the written decision, he did very little to save himself. Now, yes, of course, there could have been more behind the scenes. I've read enough court opinions to know that the opinions do not always provide all the facts. And there may have been facts that Doug did not want public. Many times in these cases the lawyer has an alcohol or drug problem, and that is what leads to actions. Or a gambling problem. I am by no means saying Doug had any of these problems, just saying what is common. Someone mentioned an additction to comics. An addiction is an addiction, and can be as problemmatic with one form or another. Probably would have been more embarrasing to have claimed this than an alcohol problem though.

 

I was struck by the fact that the only mitigating character witness was his father. That was a worthless exercise by itself, more so if his father was also his law partner. Given the friendliness of Doug I would suspect he did not want his friends and colleagues to know what had happened and, therefore, did not ask for their support. The alternative, of course, is that they declined to support him (but it is likely the former).

 

My personal decision is that I will not engage in any business with Doug. For one thing, trust has eroded. This can, of course, be rebuilt over time. Second, it is a matter of principle. There has to be consequences for actions such as these. I am not going to reward someone's business who has acted in such a terrible manner simply because they did not act that way towards me (to the best of my knowledge).

 

This hobby of ours is under attack. There is no oversight. I know of quite a few scandals or despicable actions by major dealers that few know about and it makes me sick b/c it is done without the knowledge of most collectors and it just continues to occur without remorse or hesitation. Unless we, the community, act to say "enough is enough", and raise the bar on the ethical standards we want to see permeate through the hobby, there will be no changes.

 

There needs to be some changes. I am sorry that one of those changes involves Doug, but that was his doing, not mine.

[The Black Hand ®]

It's always bothered me when someone who is likeable and personable and charming uses those attributes to take advantage of more vulnerable people. I'm sure Esquirecomics can attest to the tremendous amount of trust his clients have in him and what a sacred responsibility that is. To Uphold the Law aren't just casual words.

[esquirecomics]

I just got off the phone with Doug and as you would expect he is extremely upset that his friends and clients are hearing about these things in this manner. I'm just reporting, not editorializing at all at this point.

 

He did say a few things which he said I could post if I wished.

 

- He was not in partnership with his Dad. They shared office space but not business. He ran a sole proprietorship when he practiced law.

- He admitted to poor bookeeping practices and did not deny the charges. He said if he HAD been in practice with his father, he probably wouldn't have made the mistakes he did.

- He said that he just found out about this himself Monday, and that he has not practiced law for two years. The hearing panel had recommended a suspension, not disbarment. Doug's lawyer had led Doug to expect either a suspension or censure. The final decision came as a surprise to Doug.

- He apologized to me and to his friends and clients for having to learn about this matter in this way.

- He also voiced frustration at the fact that these incidents were in the past, he had learned from it, and assured me that the running of his comic book business was totally on the up and up.

 

That's the reporting. Every person has to make his or her own decision about this. Based on what I know personally of Doug, directly, and my dealings with him, and his gentlemanly treatment of my daughter when he met her, I will continue to do business with him. I understand if others choose differently.

 

No one is as pure as the driven snow. I'm just factoring the latest in with what I know about Doug. We are all part Buddha and part demon. A mix of good and evil. (Except me. I'm perfect.) I'm disappointed in hearing the news. I don't minimize it, but it's my personal choice to continue to do business with him, and in the areas of comics, to trust him as much as I trust anyone I do business with.

 

Brad

 

Oh....and Jason Ewert can still burn in hell!

 

Brad, you know I adore you and we fight side by side on so many things, practically everything. I admire your support of Doug and your continuing display of friendship. I encourage the personal support.

 

With all due respect, however, the choice to do business with Doug raises my eyebrows. Your decision is your decision of course and I do not write this to persuade you to do otherwise. I wrote a lengthy statement above before I saw your post here. If we want this hobby to change, we need to be consistent in how we treat those who act in ways that mess it up.

 

We know of several other people who have committed crimes or shameful acts, even unrelated to comics, who are essentially boycotted. I don't see the difference.

 

Again, I am only looking at the professional side of it, not the personal.

 

[Red Hook]

I've noticed that, and no insult is intended, as many of the discussions on the boards have become more lawyer-centric, the merits of peoples actions are evaluated purely from a legalistic or prosecutable perspective. If what someone did is prosecutable, then it was wrong. If it can't be proven in court, then leave the guy alone.

 

As most of you know, I am very concerned with ethical behavior. From a humanist standpoint, as well as in other ways. As a non-lawyer, I value the legal opinions of the experts on the boards, but I don't want us to lose sight of the indivduals affected by the verbiage.

 

Is my current trust in Doug quantifiable? Explainable? Probably not. It's an intuition.

 

I don't know the reasons or facts behind the actions that led to the disbarment. All I know is that at this point in time, I consider Doug older, hopefully a little wiser, and someone who does value his friendships.

 

Do we give people credit for the ability to learn from past mistakes? To move on? To turn a page? The funny thing is that, if Jason Ewert (all joking aside), exhibited true remorse and the desire to set right what he had done (going on his "alleged" actions), then even he should be given another chance. (Don't quote me.)

 

I'm just saying, that it is possible to make personal decisions about character and morals outside of a courtroom setting. Judgements about people in a courtroom should be seen for what they are, legal outcomes. And legal outcomes only.

 

When it involves a friend who has exhibited nothing but upstanding behavior, then I'm much more inclined to not excuse, but to just move on.

 

Brad

[qualitycomix]

None of the facts set forth in the disbarrment mean that Doug is not a nice or friendly guy. I've only met him once and spoken to him several times on the telephone (particularly to try and jointly purchase a collection), and I would certainly concur with that generic assessment of the type of person he presents himself as. Nor would I ever advocate that in light of these circumstances those of you who are friends with him should abandon him as a friend. To the contrary, he will need his friends for support now more than ever, and a good friend will still remain as such notwithstanding these circumstances.

 

Nice guys do bad things. Nice guys go to prison. What Doug did was potentially prosecutable. Most likely the District Attorney's Office declined to prosecute in light of the disciplinary proceedings and the fact that it would appear funds were returned to the clients. But not being prosecuted is not the same thing as not having committed a crime. Frankly, I encourage people to contact Doug and see if he will tell you his side of the story. If I were him, however, I would not post anything on these boards. What could he say? He can't offer information that differs from what he earlier presented. He could say he is sorry, and I am sure he is. But sorry is not enough at this stage.

 

The issue is not about is he friendly, or how smoothly did any prior comic book transaction go, it is about the level of trust that his conduct evokes and his integrity. Our ability to trust him or respect his integrity is not isolated to his actions as an attorney versus his actions as a comic book collector/dealer. His trust and integrity shift from one occupation to another unchanged. It is about what he now represents as a dealer in the hobby.

 

What Doug did, and the opinion is clear that he eventually chose not to substantively contest the allegations, is reprehensible. It was, for most of the charges, likely done deliberately and with full knowledge of what he was doing, as well as the fact that he knew it to be wrong. I cannot accept the claim that as a 16 year veteran lawyer Doug did not know the difference between how to properly maintain escrow accounts and client money and not to.

 

The primary discussion in the opinion is one of mitigation. What could Doug say to mitigate his punishment once the charges were finalized. From the written decision, he did very little to save himself. Now, yes, of course, there could have been more behind the scenes. I've read enough court opinions to know that the opinions do not always provide all the facts. And there may have been facts that Doug did not want public. Many times in these cases the lawyer has an alcohol or drug problem, and that is what leads to actions. Or a gambling problem. I am by no means saying Doug had any of these problems, just saying what is common. Someone mentioned an additction to comics. An addiction is an addiction, and can be as problemmatic with one form or another. Probably would have been more embarrasing to have claimed this than an alcohol problem though.

 

I was struck by the fact that the only mitigating character witness was his father. That was a worthless exercise by itself, more so if his father was also his law partner. Given the friendliness of Doug I would suspect he did not want his friends and colleagues to know what had happened and, therefore, did not ask for their support. The alternative, of course, is that they declined to support him (but it is likely the former).

 

My personal decision is that I will not engage in any business with Doug. For one thing, trust has eroded. This can, of course, be rebuilt over time. Second, it is a matter of principle. There has to be consequences for actions such as these. I am not going to reward someone's business who has acted in such a terrible manner simply because they did not act that way towards me (to the best of my knowledge).

 

This hobby of ours is under attack. There is no oversight. I know of quite a few scandals or despicable actions by major dealers that few know about and it makes me sick b/c it is done without the knowledge of most collectors and it just continues to occur without remorse or hesitation. Unless we, the community, act to say "enough is enough", and raise the bar on the ethical standards we want to see permeate through the hobby, there will be no changes.

 

There needs to be some changes. I am sorry that one of those changes involves Doug, but that was his doing, not mine.

 

I completey agree with the above. I genuinely like Doug. I also am geniuninely pissed off that he did this because of the impact it has on the hobby and the fact that his integrity has been completely impuned. Will I ever do business with him again? At this point, I say no. I'll never say never, but at this point no. The line in the sand must be drawn and I can't let my personal like of Doug get in the way of what's right. If this was about most other dealers in the hobby, I wouldn't even have a conflict at all.

[october]

I'm just saying, that it is possible to make personal decisions about character and morals outside of a courtroom setting. Judgements about people in a courtroom should be seen for what they are, legal outcomes. And legal outcomes only.

 

That's a rather odd statement. Legal outcomes don't exist in a bubble, they have real-world causes and consequences. If a decision by a court isn't enough to sway you, what is? A story from a stranger about dishonest dealings? A story from a friend? Do you have to get burnt yourself before losing trust in someone? I am all for giving people second chances, but when someone commits 40+ acts of fraud, misconduct and theft I would stop and think before buying a multi-thousand dollar book from that person. That's just me though, I guess others can draw their own conclusions. Maybe you need to be a lawyer to truly appreciate how serious a punishment disbarment is.

[Jeffreykli]

Wow. This is shocking news...and to chime in and echo the thoughts of the other lawyers on the boards, this is inexcusable.

 

Think about it...the client escrow account is a completely separate bank account from the firm's regular account. The point is to ensure that the clients' funds are kept separate. The only time a lawyer is to access the client trust account is when the clients' bills are approved for payment, and even then, only to the extent of the bill.

 

So, basically, it appears that Doug didn't understand this concept and deposited his own money into the client account. And that he withdrew more than "his" money from the client account. Crazy. At best, bad business. At worst, fraud and theft.

 

The comment about the pot of money is a good one, but one that any business owner faces. Just because you intend to pay it back does not mean that it's okay. The point is that the money was never Doug's. It's always the clients' money, and the client has a right to get the money back at any time. The clients never agreed to loan Doug the money interest free!

 

For me, I haven't met Doug, and have had no dealings with him other than buying a Burntboy book. For me, I might continue to buy books from him, but I would not consign anything to him. I wouldn't have complete confidence that I'd get my money when the books sold.

[Rob]

Edit: [embarrassing lack of self control] me, I'm retarded.

[qualitycomix]

I've noticed that, and no insult is intended, as many of the discussions on the boards have become more lawyer-centric, the merits of peoples actions are evaluated purely from a legalistic or prosecutable perspective. If what someone did is prosecutable, then it was wrong. If it can't be proven in court, then leave the guy alone.

 

As most of you know, I am very concerned with ethical behavior. From a humanist standpoint, as well as in other ways. As a non-lawyer, I value the legal opinions of the experts on the boards, but I don't want us to lose sight of the indivduals affected by the verbiage.

 

Is my current trust in Doug quantifiable? Explainable? Probably not. It's an intuition.

 

I don't know the reasons or facts behind the actions that led to the disbarment. All I know is that at this point in time, I consider Doug older, hopefully a little wiser, and someone who does value his friendships.

 

Do we give people credit for the ability to learn from past mistakes? To move on? To turn a page? The funny thing is that, if Jason Ewert (all joking aside), exhibited true remorse and the desire to set right what he had done (going on his "alleged" actions), then even he should be given another chance. (Don't quote me.)

 

I'm just saying, that it is possible to make personal decisions about character and morals outside of a courtroom setting. Judgements about people in a courtroom should be seen for what they are, legal outcomes. And legal outcomes only.

 

When it involves a friend who has exhibited nothing but upstanding behavior, then I'm much more inclined to not excuse, but to just move on.

 

Brad

 

Brad,

 

I'm not going to be able to change your mind nor would I want to. Doug is a nice, charming guy. And he's your friend. And he was put in a position of trust and over time, he repeatedly violated that trust.

[Red Hook]

 

Brad, you know I adore you and we fight side by side on so many things, practically everything. I admire your support of Doug and your continuing display of friendship. I encourage the personal support.

 

With all due respect, however, the choice to do business with Doug raises my eyebrows. Your decision is your decision of course and I do not write this to persuade you to do otherwise. I wrote a lengthy statement above before I saw your post here. If we want this hobby to change, we need to be consistent in how we treat those who act in ways that mess it up.

 

We know of several other people who have committed crimes or shameful acts, even unrelated to comics, who are essentially boycotted. I don't see the difference.

 

Again, I am only looking at the professional side of it, not the personal.

 

 

Oh, I know exactly how much you adore me!

 

Now here's the thing. If you proved to me that Doug was acting unethically or illegally with regard to his comic business I would drop him like a hot potato. I have seen not a hint of that kind of behavior. If word had come down that Doug misappropriated his clients funds last month, I would have a major problem doing business with him. In fact I wouldn't. As it is, all the posts from current clients have been praise. Brent had a deal that went awry. That was more of a difference of opinion from what I know about it.

 

I do believe in the concept of rehabilitation. Hopefully you lawyers do too. Doug did the crime and he has paid the price. If you choose to see a direct link between his past actions and the operation of his current business, then I won't argue with you. I choose to give him a chance. That's me. And mainly because he's not just a name, but a person with a wife and small son.

 

Now, if I choose to buy from you Mark (just as an example), would you like it if I put your past actions of years ago under examination?

 

Hey, my ex-wife filed a police report on me once because as I was carrying items whose ownership was under dispute out of my house , she jumped on my back and I ended up slinging her off in self defense. The report is probably still on file. I've got plenty of things in my life that I've done in the past that simply have nothing to do with my current life and my ethical stance on things in general. If my ex-wife jumped on my back again, I'd probably just slowly sit down on the sidewalk or give her the dang items back. I've learned.

 

Eh, I'm blathering here. This is interesting stuff for sure. It's not black and white. To err is human, to forgive is divine. Someone said that. Now if it turns out that I get bulllsheeted and ripped off, then you can all pile on. And I won't begrudge you at all. It's my choice.

 

Brad

[whomerjay]

I've noticed that, and no insult is intended, as many of the discussions on the boards have become more lawyer-centric, the merits of peoples actions are evaluated purely from a legalistic or prosecutable perspective. If what someone did is prosecutable, then it was wrong. If it can't be proven in court, then leave the guy alone.

 

I'm just saying, that it is possible to make personal decisions about character and morals outside of a courtroom setting. Judgements about people in a courtroom should be seen for what they are, legal outcomes. And legal outcomes only.

 

Spoken like a true liberal. If it's illegal, then it's wrong. Not illegal, than don't judge.

 

That's not what he said.

[Red Hook]

I've noticed that, and no insult is intended, as many of the discussions on the boards have become more lawyer-centric, the merits of peoples actions are evaluated purely from a legalistic or prosecutable perspective. If what someone did is prosecutable, then it was wrong. If it can't be proven in court, then leave the guy alone.

 

I'm just saying, that it is possible to make personal decisions about character and morals outside of a courtroom setting. Judgements about people in a courtroom should be seen for what they are, legal outcomes. And legal outcomes only.

 

Spoken like a true liberal. If it's illegal, then it's wrong. Not illegal, than don't judge.

 

Actually I'm saying the exact opposite. And this has nothing to do with politics.

[Timulty]

Okay, so the main dispute here is that, if a person has unethical business practices in one field, does it mean he has unethical business practices in another. Situational ethics, ain't it Grand?

[Red Hook]

But the situations are not concurrent. Can one learn from one's past mistakes? That's more the question.

 

I've bought from Doug and consigned to Doug and never had a single problem with collecting my money. When I had questions and concerns about that pressed Pacific Coast Avengers 21, he bought it back from me with no problem.

 

Anyway, I respect the differences of opinion here. I'm going to let it go for now.

 

Brad

[october]

But the situations are not concurrent. Can one learn from one's mistakes? That's more the question.

 

You are making a big assumption by calling these incidents "mistakes". These violations weren't in an ethical gray area and they didn't just happen by themselves. I could have told you comingling funds was wrong as a first semester law student. He knew what he was doing and he knew it was wrong and he did it anyway. Those weren't mistakes. Spilling milk on the floor is a mistake, wilfill fraud is not. Let's call things as they are here...

[The Black Hand ®]

I'm still mulling over the "Spoken like a true Liberal" quip. I guess spoken like a true conservative would be to change the words" theft of funds" to "relocation of assets", and then say anyone who disagrees is " aiding the terrorist".

[Red Hook]

But the situations are not concurrent. Can one learn from one's mistakes? That's more the question.

 

You are making a big assumption by calling these incidents "mistakes". These violations weren't in an ethical gray area and they didn't just happen by themselves. I could have told you comingling funds was wrong as a first semester law student. He knew what he was doing and he knew it was wrong and he did it anyway. Those weren't mistakes.

 

I didn't mean "mistakes" in that manner. Yeah, mistakes in judgement. Not actual errors.

[Red Hook]

I'm still mulling over the "Spoken like a true Liberal" quip. I guess spoken like a true conservative would be to change the words" theft of funds" to "relocation of assets", and then say anyone who disagrees is " aiding the terrorist".

 

Hey, first chance I had to vote, in 1972.....I voted for Nixon!

[esquirecomics]

I've noticed that, and no insult is intended, as many of the discussions on the boards have become more lawyer-centric, the merits of peoples actions are evaluated purely from a legalistic or prosecutable perspective. If what someone did is prosecutable, then it was wrong. If it can't be proven in court, then leave the guy alone.

 

So, what you are saying is that you would gladly buy a comic from OJ?

[Timulty]

Okay, you guys don't want this thread to take a political slant. Arch has been known to smack people around in the Watercooler for less. I think this thread really calls for a poll. So here goes: