20069 5 § mamas coorre, sexs NOwARO nunEnaTEnN 5 ist suorctaL orsenter 08 On te 23¢8 day of August, 1983, the sboverentteied and mime ered cause was called for telat. me Platntife appeared by and Lnrough Lea attorneys of record and the Defendant appeared in pecton PO se, Me parties announced ceady for tela, the Defendant ther Dy walving the appearance of nis former attorney of cecord and & Sey having been demanded, a fury was thereafter selected and duly snworn and ntd eause proceeded te sclat. On mUguEE 24, 1983, the Detendant voluntartiy abaented Mintel€ fron telat whlch proceeded Untsi August 26, 1983, at whien tine the Plainetee rented. (Om the 21 day of AugusE, 1989, the Jory through Lee foreman fnnounced in open court that a verdict had been reached. wheseupon, he Court received the Jury's verdict, which was unenincus, a copy ‘Of vhleh te attached hereto and Le incorporated hecein by reference land made a pact dereot for 411 purpoues. ‘The Court, bised spon the Jury's verdict and the lay appileabie thereto. 18 of the oplaton and so flnds that the acts and conduct on the part of the Defendant, as found by the Jury in anewers to Ove hone Wo. 1s 23, 4s 5, 6, 7, and 8 cegerding Sam Bluncéon cofeti= tute violations of clacipiinary miles 1=102(AN(29, 1-102(A)(4), Tet021anis), 1=1020AN 06), SHOTLANIDD, -TeHOTEAIEAD, T10V1AN 2), T-HOUEADIDI, 9°102(A), and 9-102(0) of the Code of Professions] Re~ ‘Te court further finde thas the acts and conduct on the part ‘of the Defendant, as found by the Jury In anawers to Questions mo, 94 10, 11, and 12 regarding Arthar Lahonan constitute violations of Dinesplinesy mites 1H102(A0(9), 1=10RtAN(4).1-102041¢5), 1-102 (AEE, GIONCANAD, TeHOHEADLAD, THHOIEATIAI, $6102(A), and so102 (2) of the code of Professions! Reeponsibiitey.a 259 Te 465 ‘The Cour: fasther finde that the acte and conduct on the part (of the Defendant, ax found by the Jury In answers to Questions ho. V4, 15, 16. 196 18, 19, 20, and at ceseeding nkeky Antemecel conse fate violations of Disciplinary miles 1=102(A)(3), 1-102(NN(406 OEMS}, THHORANGD, GHHOHCANCSY, TeHON|ANLAD, TeH0HCADLADy OIIAD{3}» 9-102{A1, and 9-102(8) of the Code of Professions! Re~ bitty. ’ ‘Me Couet further Cina Ehae the acts and conduct on the pect Of the Detendunt, an found by the Jury in answers to Questions 0, 22, 23, 24, 24, 26, and 27 regarding Davie cartner constitute viols: thons of Disciplinary Mitex 1=102(A)(3), 1=102{A){4), 1-10210)(5), N=ORAN C6), GHONEANIDD, THONLANEN, THHOIEALLD, THI0LLANAD, 910210), ane ponabbt ity. ‘Te court further finde that the acts and conduct on the part ‘of the Defendant, a8 found by the Jury In anevers to Questions 0, 28, 28,,20, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 375 and. 38 cegaeaing vin and cyntnia opiiter constitute violations ‘of blsciptinary mules 1-102 (VD, TIRADE, Ne1ORKAVCSH, THI0RLANIED, GHON(AICD), 2-101 (aren, Por00AN a1, T=10H0RILaY, 9-102tAI, and 9=102(8) of the code ff Professional Remponsibinity. The Court further finde thee the acts and conduet on the pert of the Detendint, as found by the Jury In anevers to Questions¥o 394 40, 41, 45, 44, 45, and 46 cegerding Herninta Galvan constitute wolations of bisciphinary utes 1=102¢AN(3), 1-102{A)¢4), 1-1020a) (3), 1r0RC0n16), GHOTEATIAD, T=1OLEADLDD, THHONEANC2), THI0NA) (21, 9102101, and 910218) of the code of Pratesstons? meponsi~ aiey. ‘Me Court further finde that the sete and conduct on she part of the Detendint, as found by the Jury 4n shavers to Questions Ho. 47, 48, 63, 50, 31, and 52 cegarding Herminis Galvan constivite vie~ Lona of Diselplinary Miles 1-102(A)(2), 1=103{A)(4), 1=10204)(8), WHORIANEGI, S-ION(ANEAI, TeHOHEADEDD, THHOVEANLAY, THI01KRIAD, 02(A1, and 9-102(8) of the Cote of Profesional Responsibility.va 25TIon27 of the Defendant, as found by the Jury in answers to questions no, 5), 4s 85, 36, 57, 50, 39, and 60 cegarding Lee Hore conatitete violations of Disciptinary miles 1-102(A)(21, 1=102(A)(4), 110210) (8), NeORENEE, GeIONEALEDD, TerOLERNETD, DHONEANLaD,-T-H01a) (21, 9102001, ane 910210) of the code of Prate nitty. The Court further finds hat the acts and conduct on the pert of Be Detendent, a6 found by whe Jury In answers to Questions Ho, Sty 62 63s 64, 65, 66, 67, and 68 cegerding ALEK Jacobuon consth twee violations of olaciplinary Roles 1-102(A1(3), I-102(A)(4), WHOREANS I, I-teRIAyCE), G-IONCAIEDD, T-HOVKAIEN, 7-1011AI0), THONAN DY, 9-102(A), and 9-103(8) of the Cale of Peo ponsibiiity. ‘Te Court further tints chat the acts end conduct on the pert Of the Defendant, a8 found by the jury in answers td) Questions No. 691 1B. 14, 12, 73, and 14 cegaeding Helve Pelee constttate viola lone of Dlactpiinacy moles 1-102(A)(2), I-102(AN(4), 1-t026A)(5), Tar02tand), GeITANIID, MOHAVE, 910210), and 9-10218) of the code of Prot ‘he Court Custher finds hae the acts and condict on the pert OF the Defendant, as found by the jury In answers to! questions to, 78 76, 77, 1H, 79, 00, 81, 02, 83, 84, 85, 86. 67, 88, and 89 ce sarang Or. Arnold mavdel constitute violations of olsclplinery ates I=HORLANIOD, ToHOREAIEAD, teI02IANE8), 11020816), ee1010A) (is HOUND 9-102(A1, and 9-102(8) OF the Code of Professional Nesponstbtaiey, ‘Te Court further finds hat the acte and conduct on the part of the Defendant, a6 found by the Suey in answers to Questions no. 991 91, and 92 esarding Danny HLEehell constitete violations of Plsctplinary notes 1-10200)(3), 1-102{ay(4), 110214145), 1-1020a) (60s GOTEANII, ToHOVEADLTD, Tor0n(aIEad, TAHENUALCOD, Set02Ka), sd $-102(0) of the code of Protessional Responsibitity. ‘he Court further finds, 86 to each of auch violations, the Dee AIL, section 9 of the miles Governing the State Ihe of Texasya 2597 nce 428 ‘The Court soncludes and 49 of the opinion and so tinge that the Proper dtaciphing of the oetendent for each occurrence of proters ‘ona) misconduct 1s étsbarnent Te te, secordingiy, ORDERED, ADIUOGED, and DECREED that the be- fondant, WOMARO ROBERSTEDH, be and be Le hereby, DISBARRED 48 a0 oes forney at law in the State of Texan, and that be snail heceateer sHerclve none of the privileges and precopatives of the office of ag sttorney at tow. 18 4s octher ORDERED, AnsUDGED and DECREED that the Detendent, WoWnno RODENSTEEN, Le hereby’ permanently enjoined com practicins inv An Foxes, toiding himelt out ag an attorney at tev, performing nr Legal aecvices for otheca, accepting any fee Aicectty of indie eetly for egal services, sppeacing a8 counsel or in sny ceprevens tstive cepacity in any proceeding in any court tn any Toxes court oe before any Texas adninteteative body, of holding ineelt out te others oF sing Ms name, in any manner, in consonction vieh the etorney at lav", “counselor at lav of “tawer, 1e ts further OMERED that the Defendant imediately notify Heh Of ha curcent cliente tn vetting of thle dlabacnent, to addin Hon fo, such nottfleation, the Defendant 8 ORDERED to return ail ‘Htee, papera, monies and other property belonging to cliente end former cliente in the betendant'a possession to the cempective hie ‘ants oF former cliente oF to another attorney at the client's ov forser client's Fequest. Salé Defendant is ordered to. tlle vith WM Court wienin ety (30) days of the date of this gudguens. on atfldaeie stating thas a1] current elients have been notified of the Defendant's dtsbarnent and thet aii tiles, papers, monies and othes Property belonging to all cliente and torner clients have bees eon tomed an ordered hecein, TE 4s foether ORDERED that the sald MOWARD RUDENSZEDH, sanedt= ‘tcly ucrender Me Texan lay Ltcthue and permanent seate ter tard, umber 17261900, to Plaintttt*s attorney for tranamitia! to eho Clerk of the Suprene court of TeraTe Le further ORDERED that the Clack of this court shall for ware # certifies copy of the Second Amended Fornsl Complaint on tlie herein, along with 2 copy of Ehls Judgment to each the Clerk of the Sepeene Court Wulléing, Austin, Texas 78711, 12407, Austin, Texas 78711 YE Ae further ORDERED that the counterclaim of the Defendant, Moward Rubenstein be, and Lt 16 hereby in all things DeNZED, Te Le further ORDERED that all coate of court herein tneurred be teked againat the Defendant, HOWARD RUBENSTEDN, for which the Clerk may ibe nla execution 4€ they are not timely pale *, Bigsed ents _¢ Many of dye 1982. ApBhovED ag 0 ronor a1-00089 ‘souRD nUDENSTEON e4eh JuDIcrat prstRICT SECOND AMENDED rORIAL cOMMAINT COMES HOI the Grievance Conaitter for ftate Ber District Wo, 4-8, State mar of Texas, herelnatter called “Plaines ter, ‘acting herein in the name of the state of Texas, and flies [Enis Lee SECOND AMENDED FORAAL COMPLATNE, complaining of HOWARD RUBENSTEIN, hacetnatter called ‘Detendant* end for ‘owuse of Action vould tov the Court the folloving: ‘The Defendant 18 nov, and has been at a1 times material hereto, a duly Llcensed attorney of the State of Texas, and member of the state Gar of Texas. The Defendant ‘has appeaced land ansverea hecein for 411 pusposes. ‘Tale eule Le beoughe under and by virtue of the state Bee Net, Texsnev.cly.StateAnne, acts 3208-1 (1979), and ehe Rule Governing the State tor of Texas, ax adopted, promvigated and continued by the Supcene Court of Texas, particularly (but not by may of Listtation) Articie xIr thereot, captioned “Dlsetpline m. \ Plainttte would show that the acts and conduct of ihe De fepaint, ae doreinatter detatied with nore particularity, vio~ tated the cose of Professions) Responsibility, Section 8, Arti cle x11, tales governing the State Bar of Texas, and constitute Professions misconduct warranting alscipiinaey action by Sugg ent of this lonorable Court. Seid acts of professions alscon= uct are herein alleged as follows:us one injury claim agointt ie, Kinberly Sawer. On oF before June 28 1979, te claim was settlod by the Defendant with Me. sawyer's tn surance carrier without the knovledge of his clfent, and a draft in| lant enforsed his client's name to the Ingucance draft without the knowledge oF content of Mie client, and deposited the draft on oF ‘about une 26, 1879, for collection n the oeter ete ine them 015-954, at Security National tank, Houston, ‘texas, such account deing styled “Rogers, Rubenstein, & Weight on or about June 29, 1979, the Defendant prepared 4 check number 1162, 4m the amount of $1,250.75, payable to Sem iuneson, drawn on Ge Rosera, Rubenstein & Might Trust Account, stb the net settlement amount oved to ALE cli lent, fam Bluncaon. The Defendant theceatter endorsed that check ‘vith the name “San Bluncson® without the Knoviegge or content of ine, Biuncson. On oF about July 12, 1879, the Defendant deposited that check to the credit of account number 012-781, at Security National Dank, Houston, Texas, styled “Legal Trust Account®. tn Leeuth and tn tact, sich Legal Trust Account was & general purpore bbenk secount {nto shieh the Defendant deposited nis ovn fonds and {trom voich the Defendent paid Ms peesons bills and accounts. The Defentent commingled his client's funds with hie ovn within such accounts On uly 26, 1978, the balance in the Lagel Trust Ae count {611 "below $1,250.75, the net settlement amount dve to Hee Dluncton. Finally, on or about Septenber 8, 1979, the Defendant prepared & check from the Legal Trust Account to: mr, Bluneson tn the mount of $1,250.00, watch vas dediverse to mr. Blunczon. ‘Such conduct on the pert of the Defendant constitutes profes sont misconduct as that tern ts understood in the lav of the State of Toras, in violation of Disciplinary Rules 110208102). JOUADLAD, 1=1O2CAD (6), GHIOTEAIERY | TH1ON{AN (D2, $-102CAI a 9-102(8) of the Code of Professional Responsibility for whitch the Defendant should be, by this Court, dlsctplinescount wo ‘the Defendant undertook to represent Archie R. tannin in a worker's compensation matter. The matter vas ecttied by the De endant on oF before July 27, 1979 without the knowledge of nie fellent, and a check in settienent numbered 089282 Letued by the elaine service to the Defendant and Me. Lahrman in the anount of 11,000.00, The Defendant endorsed his client's name to tie check without the Rrowiedge or consent of Ma client, and deposited the ‘eheek on oF about July 27, 1979, tn the Defendant's law fem trust ‘Account, number 015-284, 88 Security NatLonsl Bank, Houston, Texas, ftuch account being styled "Rogers, Rubenstein 4 Mright Trust Ac~ count", On oF about July 27, 1978, the Defendant prepared ‘check fnunber 1117 Ln the anount of $749:20, payable to Arthur Lahenan, ‘ravn en the fogers,, mbenstein & Weight Trust Account, which check reprebinted the net dettlenent oved to Me-citent, Mr, tabrman. ‘The Defendant thereafter endorsed eat check with the name “Acthor Taneani*, without the knowledge oF content of Me. Laheman. On or ‘about Duly 27, 1979, the Defendant deposlted that check to some other’ bank account, the Identity of vnich {4 not known to thé Pialptite, ber Le well known to the Defendant.” Finely, on or ‘about August 27, 1979, the Defendant prepared check number 782 from ‘account number 012-781, at Security Yatlondl Bank, Houston, Texas, fo Arthur Lanenan, in the amount of 750,00, such acccunt, at ‘ough belng styled “Legal Trust Account™ vas in truth ant in fact 4 general purpose bank account Into which the Defendant Sepost ted hia own funde and fron which the Defendant paid Ma pecsovel Bills and accounts, the proceeds of Mr. Lahenan's settlement hed not een deposited in the Legel Trust Account. Such conduct on the fact of the Defendant constitutes protessional alsconduct a4 that term {8 understood in the law of the state of Texas, in violation fof Disetpiinaey mutes /-1020QN13), 1-102¢AN10), TH1E2(ANC6), G=101EN)(2), 7100109021," 910210), and 910218) of the cove of Protesttonat Responsibility for which the Defendant shovid be, by thts court, dtsetplined,@ e coum mune Dpecsona injury claim against ABC Ax Condittontng and others. On for before march 2, 1979, auch clain vas settted by the Defendant itn ABC's incurance careter vithout the knowledge of his elfent, fand a draft in sottienent in the amount of $4,000.00 ves recelved by the Detendan:. The oetendant endorsed hie eltent*s name to the Grate without the knoviedge or consent of Hee, Tanner, and depo: ‘slted the deat, on or about march 2, 1979, for credit to the De- fendent's law flem teust account number 015-354, at security ational Bank, Houston, Texae, such account being styled “Rogers, Rubenstein & Wight Trust Account." On oF about March 1, 1979, fehe Defendant prepared check number 1010, in the snount of 152,068.70, payable tg Less Tanner, dravn on the Rogers, Rubenstein weiGne trust Account, which check ceprosented the not enttlenent fancunt due to Me client, wee. Tanner, The Defendant, theceatter lendotsed that check with the name “Lees Tenner* without the knowl= fae oF consent of Wes. Tanner. Or oF about March 29, 1978, the Defendant deported that check to some other bank account, the Adenttty of which As not snow to the PlaLnELEE, But Le well Know to the Defendat. Om or about MECH 30, 1973, the Defendant pre pared check number 619 from account number 012-781, at security Mettonst sank, Houston, Texas, to Liss (ale) Tennee, In the amount 0f $2,068.70. Suen account, although being ‘styled “egal Trust ‘count Into which the Defendant deposited la evn funds and fron atch the Defendant paid his ov personel bil1s and accounts, The proceeds of Mes. Tanner's settle mont Md not been deposited in the Legal Tevet Account, 1 Such condsct on the past of the Defendant constitutes profes: sional alsconduct a5 that term Ls understood in the lov of the ‘State of Toxo4, An violation of Disciplinary mules. 1-102(A)(3), WeroRCanay, 1-102CA0 6), 6TONEANLI), 7TOLERIEDD, 910200), ane 910213) of the Code of Professions] Responsibitity for vhleh the Defondant should be, by this Court, aise! plined,‘me Defendant undertook to represent Ricky Antonueel In a pee fons) injury and property damage claim against Freddie L. sryant fon of Betore dprl 16, 1879, such clain vas settied by tne verena~ fant with ne. Aeyant'a Insurance eaceier without the knowledge of Inte client, and 2 cate in the amount of $2,250.00 in vas cecelved ty: the Defendant. the vefendant endorsed Ms client's inane bo the azgtt without ee Rrovledge or consent of his client wre Grate was deposited on or about April 17, 1978, for eredlt to tebe Defondant!s law fem trust account, number 015-354, at security ational aan, touston, ‘Texas, such account belng styled “Rogeras Rubenstein & Mright ‘Teust Account", On of shout Apeli 25, 1979, the Defendant prepared check number 104, In the anount of $1,747.95, payable 2 Rleky Antonueet, draw on the Rogers, Ruben teins Weight Trust hecount, which check repeesented: the nat eet= enent amount due to Me elient, He. Antonueet. The Detendent thereafter endorsed that chick with the name "RLcky Antonucet" without the knoviedge or congent of Mr. Antonucel. On or bout ‘Apcti 26, 1999, the Defgndant’ deposited that check to the credit of fsccount nuabee 012-781, at Security Wttonal Bank, Houston, Tex tyled “Lagat Trust Account”. me Déendant commingled bis elt~ fent's fonds with Ma ovn within wich eceount. In truth and in fact, auch Legal Trust Account ves a general purpose bank account fron vnich the Defendant paid Ms personal bL1s and accounts, On ey 1, 01998, the balance {nthe :Lagel Trust Account (412 below $1,747.95, sme amount ave to Me. Antonuect, On oF about My 7, 1979, the oefendant prepared and forwarded to He. AMtonucel & eck fron the Legal Trust Account payable to ve. “Antorveet in the sanount of $1,000.00 tor hie property danage claim, Finally, on oF about Aupuet 10, 1978, the Defendant prey a check from the Legal Trust account payable. to Mr. Antonucet in the amount of $747.95, constituting the rematntSuen conduct on the part of the Detendant constitutes prote ‘tonal miaconduct as that tern {2 understood in the law of the State of Texws, in vioistion of Disetplinary miles 1-102(4)0), NeHODUADUAD, TH1EREMNU6), G1OLERILAD, THOTEANIAD, 9-102(8) of the toda of Protos s-102(01 and fone Responsibility for witch the Defendant should be, by this Court, disciplined. ‘coum rave ‘The Detendont undertook the representation of David ¢. certnee nm a personal Injury natter against Bob sobertson chevrolet Con any. On OF before July 23, 1979, the mattor was settled by the Defendant vithout his elient's anowledge, and a dcatt in the amount ‘of $1,000.00 in settlement vas cecelved by the Defendant. ‘The De endant endorsed hit elent's mane to the rate without the kro¥l= ledge o€ consent of Nis client, and deposited the rate on oF shout uty 23, 197%, im the Defendant's lav ftea- trust account, nunber 015,354, at Security Matlonal Bonk, loueton, Texas, aueh acount being styled “ojers, Rubenstein ¢ Weight Trust Account". on oF meoueily 23, 1979, ene ete nt prepared check under 1115, tn the amount of 1533.00, payable to navia carter, dravn on the Rogers, fubensteln & Weight Trust Account, which check cepresented he nee settLenent amount due to his client, Me. Certner, The DE endant endorsed that check vith the name *Sevid Cartner* wLthout the knowledge oF content of He, Cartner. On oF about July 24, 1979, the Defendant deposited that check to aoe other bank ac- count, the {dontity of vAten Le unknown to the Plalnei te, but witch te veli known to the Defendant. Finatly, on of about August 21, 1979, the DeLendont prepared cheek nunber 786 from account nunber 012-781, at Securtty Hottonal Sank, Houetén, Texas, to Davie cart~ 1 An the amount of $533.00, Such account, elthough being styled stegal tpust Account wae in truth and’ in fact a genecel purpose sccount nto which the Defendant deposited his own finds and from Walch the Defendant ald Ms personal Bille and accounts. The pro 5 of Hr. cartnerta settlement had aot boon egal Teast Acecunt.Such conduct on the part of the Defendant constitutes proces” ‘ons misconduct as that tere 42 underatond in the lav of the state of Texas, In violation of Disciplinary Ales 1=102(A) (21s HeVORCANEAD, T-10200N(6), 1OTEANLD), T=TONEATIAY, 102A), and 9-102(1 of the code of Protossional Reaponsibiiity for which the Defendant shovld be, by this court, disciplined. ‘The Defendant undertook to represent the Interests of ven and ‘cynthia Splitter in a personal injury aatter against. thomas Conay. (on or before may'25, 1978, the matter sas settled by the Defendant without nie client's knowledge In the anount of 17,300,00 was received by the Defendant. the Defendant endorsed his cllente’ anes to the arate without the kroviedse or consent of the etents, and depostegs the 4 fe, on OF about May 25, 1979, for col- ectibn in the defendant's tay fem eeust account, number 015-354, ‘at security ational Bank, Houston, Texas, such account being etyled snogers, fubenstein & Weight Trust Account*. Gn or about May 25, 1978, the Defendant. prepared check number 1079, in the anount of $3,209.95, payable to Ivan spliter, graun on the Rogers, Rubenstein | welghe Trust Account, vhleh check represented the net acttlenent mount due nis ellenta, the Spitters, The Detendant thereafter en orsed that check vith the nane "Ivan Spiller" without the kroviedge for consent of He. Spiller. On oF about June 5, 1978, the Defendant epostted that eheck to the credit of account muaber 012-781, at Se= ‘cuclty Wattonal Denk, Houston, Texas, styled "Legal Teust Account, ‘The Defendant conmingied As clients! funds vith Me ovn within auch ‘account. Th truth and in fact, auch Legal Trust Account wae a gen= ‘erat purpose bank account into which the Detendast Gepotited Nie oon funds, and from which the Defendant pald nia persons) Bille and ae~ counts. On or about June 4, 1978, the Defendant 4 672 An the amount of 3 400,00 on the Legal Tewst Account, payable to cynthia Spliier. on June 6, 1978, the balance in the Legal trust Account fell below the $1,708.95 st111 oved to ihe Spillers, and on. tune 18, 1978, the account was overdraun by $668.72. 8 uly 27, 1979, ee BeCendant ma ning on partial paysenta to the Spillersft tottowss uty 11, 1978, c8200.0017 aaguat 10, 1979 (9200-00); fentember 10, 197%, ($350.00); september 13, 1999 (81,000.00), erments were by chacke denen on the Legal Trust Account after she balance In that azcount had been negative, S82 conduct on the pact of the Defendant. constitute sonal sconduct as tht tem Le understood in the law of the 'm violation of olsciptinacy autes. 1-102(A)(2), PROMATS THORON6), 6-1ONCANI1, DoHONEAICD, aet02KA)y an 218218) of he Code of Professional Responsibility tor atten ene Detendant should be, by eis court, alscipiing cow seven on oe sbovt AesiL 3, 1978, the oetendant undertook the repres ‘emation of Wecnints Gaivan in a pecsonal Injury and property sexs ‘Sse claim asalnat Willan A, faCalahl. 09 oz about June 12, 1909) ine oMenoant GeRtLethe property danase portion of aes, enivants stats {or £44650.00. the Defendant alaned Hee. culvan's nase to she Propesty damage Graft without ex knowledge ot concent, and sapetien st fe Gcatt Into tre Detendant's lew tiem trust account, moanee C1254 48 Seeuslty Mttonal Sank, Houston, Texas, sich aceoune tee {ov s8yle0 “Ropers, Rubenstein and Weight trust Account,® on dere 4s 1979, the Detendant prepared check munber 1089, tn ene $4,000.00, payabte te tecninte ceivan dct on the te stein and Welane eure Aecount. Te Defendant. endo wih the names, “Horainta Galvan+ and *h, catvan® vithowt the bene s28® oF-consent of his ellen. On oF about duly 18, 1979, ehe oes fendent deposited tat check to the credit of account nosis SIRTHy AE Secueley MBttonat Bank, Huston, te¥.es styled claget TreHt Accounts tn truth and tn fact, auch Legal Toute decount seg & seers pornose bark account into wtch the Detendant depmsine Ne oem funds and ffee which the DeCendent paid be om pertonn Sitis, The Defendant comiagled Wes. celven'e property daasye anes Wievent in the Legal Truet Acsomt, On July 19, 1979, the esience tn We Legat Trust Account folt below the anount oved by the Onteree ant 89 Wes, Galvan on secount of the property danage aettienane, oy oF Mout Aupust 17, 1978, the Defendant prepared and delivered coWes, Gatvan a tepal Trust Account check, numbee 783, for $2,500.00 {in partial peysent of the sum oved to her, Further, on Gctober 3, 1979, the Defendant prepared and deliveccd to Ford motor Ceedit Cone pany & Legal Trust Account eheex number 861 to sey off the Len ved Gavan on the autonabiie involved in the accident. ‘sonal mtscondsct a5 that term La understood in the law of the state 9€ Texas, in violation of Dlsctplinary Rules 1-102{A}{3), 1+103(a) (Ade tn0neanesy, 1020061, 6101¢R113), TIOTEADLAD, s-102(a), ‘and 9-102(8) of the Code of Professions] Responsibility for vhich the Defendant should be, by this Court, dlactplined, cour e1cer (On or about April 19, 1879, tne Detendant undertook the cepee= wentation of Weeminie Galvan in a pectonel injury and property dom claim asninat witllan A. Tafelakt, on or about Sune 25, 1978, the Defendant settled the personal insury portion of ea. Galvan‘ ‘late for $4,070.00 venout the krovledge oF content of fra. Galvan. ‘Te Defendant signed Mea. Gelvan's name to the pectonsl injury écatt without her knowledge or consent, and negotiated the cafe in & mane hee well known to the Defendant bet unknown to the Plaineiee. the Defendant failed to deposit the draft to an identtClabie benk ac count An the Siate of Texas, failed to maintain the separate {denti~ LY OF the funds of hia client, failed to promptly notity Hee. Gale van that he Me settled the personal infury lain, and tailed to Promptly renit to Wea. Galvan that anount she was entitled to ceive, Plaintiee further alleges those allegations eet out in count Seven hereinabove set forth as Lf Count Seven vat herein set ovt tony. tum of $8,650.00 for the propecty Gamage gnd personal injury portions of the claln of nes. Galvan ‘geist Witten Tafelakt. Fron the tote! amount eecovered, eas Caivan received or received the benefit of # total of $3,868.25, an ‘mount less than her entitionent under her conteact of enploymentona misconduct as that tern {4 understood In the lav of the state fof Texas, in violation of lseiplinary Rates 1-102(A1(2), 1-102) (4), tet0nca es), TH102tanU6), 2106, GtOVEAIIAD, 71000000, $-102(A), and 4-102(R) of the Code of Professtonat sesponsibiltty for whlch the Defendant should be, by this Court, disciplined. fon of before dune 29, 197%, the Defendant settled, without the knowledge of nie client, a personal Injury and propecty danage aat~ ter agsinet uacvood Ritch he hd undertaken for a client, Richard ‘tatso, for the tun of $2,009.00, The Defendant endorete hie cll= fof hie client, and the scgtlenent check was deposited, on oF sbout une 29, 1973, Into he Defendant's lav fia trust account, nanber (15-354, at security Sational tank, Houston, texas, such account be- ng styled ‘agers, Rubenstein & Weight Trust Account’. On oF ‘avout Sune 29, 1979) the Defendant prepared check nusber 1099, tn the amount of 6606.75, paynble to Richard Tatro, araun on the Rogers, Rubenstein, & Weight Trust account, which check cepeesen- ed the net settlement amount oved to Ma client, Me. TatCo. Te Defentant theretter endorsed chat check vith the mane *Rlcherd ‘ratrot without the Knovlegge of consent of Me ellent. On or abovt oly 2, 1978) the defendant deposited that check to the eredlt of ecount nunber 012-781 at Securlty Natlonsl Bank, Houston, Texa8y auylee thegat Trust Account", The Defendant comaingleg his ellent's ftunda with his oun within euch account, In truth and in fact, auch Leegat Trust Account we # general purpose bank account Into vhich the Defendant deposited nia oun funds and from hich the Defendant pele his personai bills and accounts, On the sane day, July 2, 1979, tne palance An the Legal Trust Account fell beloy the $686.75, elit oved by the Defendant to He. TARE, On July 5, 1979, Rlenard ‘ratro donandod Ma settlement fon the Defendant, The Dofendont, on hat date, prepared check nutber 1103 on the Rogers, Rubenstein & leetght Trust Account, poyable to Rlenaed Tatro, in the amount of $606.75, and delivered the ehack to Ne. TaECe, The Defendant failed ao.to account to Mis Inv (lem o¢ partners for the original $6 rece munbeced 1089, 80 the end that the lay Clem fold the TaEro uch conduct on the part of the Defendant constitutes Prot ionai sisconduct af that teen te understood in the lay of the ate of Texas, in violation of Disciplinary Riles 1-102(A1(2)+ peroatay(ad, Y=1OZUAI(6), @HOW(ANED), THIONLADAT, STORLAD, ane yponatbility for vnich the Detandant should be, by this Court, disciplined. g-102(8) of the Code of Professional Res oom fon or before Suly tt, 1979, the Defendant aettted, without the anovtedge o€ hie cllant, & worker's compensation matter he Me sn- Gercanen for a clisnt, tae Moore, for the settlement anoint of 1730.00, The Defeqdant endorsed hls cleats nane to the aateler ee pheck without 2 hrowledge oF consent of Ms client, and the Mectienant check was deposited, on of sbout duly 11, 1979, in the Sutendanete law tien teust account number 015-354, at Seevelty Tationsi ask, Houston, Texas, auch account belng styled. “topes uvenatein & Neigh: Trust Ascount™. On or about August 8, 1979s the petendent. prepared check nuaber 1128, in the aaount of 1104.35, payable to bee Yoore, deavn on the Rogers, Rubenstein & icugne Teust Account, which check represented the net sattlenent Ninount owed to hia elfent, He, Hoare, The Defendant eherenteer eh- aed that check with the name ‘Lee Hore’ without ube Knowl dae vor consent of nia elfent. On oF about August 10, 1979, Defendant Gepositee that check to the eredlt of fecount number 012-781 a8 fer curity ational Bink, Houston, Texas styled “Legal Trust Account” ‘The petendont commingled his client's funds with bia ow in auch veeoune, tn teuth and In fact, uch Legal Teost Account wes 4 9e0~ eet poqpoue bak ecount Into which the Defendant deposteed Mls on tandn and {con which the Defendant gold his personal BILLS and recounts, On Auyust 20, 1979, the Sotance fn the Legal! Trust Rew Tlount feti below the $1,104.95 #8111 oved by the Defendant to tee ooce, On August 23, 1978, vat aecount balance wes nesstives Mo peynents of the eatclenent were mabe by the Defendant to Mey tore aoo ee eon the date of deposit, August 10, 1979, to the date lve balance, August 23, 1979, such conduct on the part of the Defendant constitutes proves ‘Monat aisconduct as that term 1s understood in the lay of the state of Tora, An violation of Dlsciplinary Rules 1-102(403), S=t0R{aneey, TH1O21AN (6, G1ONEAIEDD, THHOU(AN(AI, 910201, ane 9-102(8) of the Code of Professional ResponatDitity for vnlen the Defendant should be, by this court, atzeiplined. fon or before August 17, 1979, the Defendant settled, without the Yoviedge or consent of Ais client, # personal infury matter he had undertaken for ¢ cellent, Alexa Jacobson, in the seetlenent lanount of $1,250.09. Te Defendant endorsed Nis client's nant to the aettlenent check, vithout Ehe hnoviedge ex consent of Me cli~ ant, ahd the settleneit check was deposited,-on or atout August 17, 1979, 44 the Defendant's lav flew trust account, nunter 015-356, at Security National Bank, Houston, Texas, such account being styled snogers, fubensteln & Weight ‘Trust Account. On ver about August 17, 1979, the Defendant. prezazed eheck umber 1132, in ene amount of $440.15, payable to Alexs Jacobson, ravn on the Ropers, fubenstein & Melght Trust Account, whlch check represented the net Jeeletene anount oved to nis ciient, nf. dacooson, on the sane ate, she petondant prepared check nuaber 1134, In the anount of $195.08, fe to De, mavdel, aeaun on the Rogors, Rubenstein & Weight Teuse Account, which check ceprasonted aedical expenses oved to be, favdel by the ellent, a. aaccbson, The refendant there ‘artes endorsed check munber 1132 vith the nine *Alexs Jacobson” and Ceneck number 1124 with the name ‘De, Ravdel*, without the knowl= edge or consent of either ie, Jacobson of Dr. Ravdel, On oF about August 17, 1978, Defendant deposited both checks to tne credit of ‘account nombor 012-781, at Security Wtional Bank, Houston, Tex28y syted “Legal Trust Account". The Defendant commingled his eli= ent'e funds vith his oun in euch account. th truth and in fact, fivch egal Teuct Account was a general purpote bank account inte nich the Defendont deposited nis oun fonds and fron which the© pefendanc paid Mz personal bills and accounts. On August 21, 1978, the balance in the Lagel Trust Account {411 below the $625.15 sett oved to Alexs Jacob zon and Or, Taydel. On August 22, 1979, ‘hat account balance was negative, No payments of the setttonent to Ma. Jacobson nor of the medical expenses to Or. tavdel vere made bby the Defendant fron the date of the deposit, August 17, 1979, to ‘ihe date of the negative Balance, August 29, 1979. ‘uch conduct on the part of the Defendant constitute profes tonal ilaconduct as that term Le understood in the law of the state of Texas, tn violation of Dlaciplinary Roles 1-102001(2), N=1OR(ANCAD, 102CANEEI, GHTOUEANCSI, THHOVUADLDD, 910210), and 49-1020) of the Code of Professions! Responsibility for whieh the Defendant should be, by this Court, disciplined. ve SRN MELE fn or shout March, 1979, the Defendant andertook the represen tation of tea. telva Price in a personal injury and property danase celate against Conmerelat nody corporation. on or about April 19, 1979, whe befendant, without the knowledge of ie client, settled ‘ihe property damage portion of the clain for the total amount of 42,709.15. the Defandant-andoraed Als client's mane to the property janage nettlement deaft without hee krovledge oF consent, and the cate was deposited to account nunber 012-761, at Security national nks Rouston, exes, such account being styled “Lagel Trust Ae- in factea general purpose bank account into vhLen the Defendant ée- poslted hls ovn funds and feom vieh the Defendant paid nis personal bilts and aceounts, The Defendant comtingled the funds of is els ‘ent within suen account with those Of his ovm. On oF about may 21, 1979, the Defendant prepared and delivered to cameron Employee's) eredit Union a cheek drawn on the Legal Trust Account for the aun of 41,990.02 vnten sun pald of the note for the car Lnvolved in We Price's scetdont. On May 31, 1979, the balance in that account wae Leas than the anount oved to Hes. Price, and June 19, 1979, that aceSuch conduct on the pact Of the Detendant constitutes prot sional alscondvct as that term {2 understood in the law of the State of Texas, in violation of Disciptinary Rules 1=102(A0(3), 1=102(A) PAUANSDy YHOREANIGD, GNONCANCD), 1-100(A0021, 9=1020M1, ‘and 9-102(8) of the Code of Professions Responsibility for witch ‘he Defendant should be, by this court, élsctelined: coune rurrees fon or before June 29, 1979, the Defendant settled a personal Anjucy matter Sh had undertaken for a client, Sam Bluncton, in the fanount of $2,250,009. The sottlenent arate wes deposit shout Sune 28, 1979, in the Defendant’s lau tiem tusk account, umber 015-354, at Secueity tational Bonk, Houston, Texas, such account being styled "Rogers, Rubenstein & Height Teust Account, (or about June 29,1879, he Defendant prapered check number 1101 payable to De, Arsold mavdel, eau on in & Weight Trust Account In paynent of the 14 oved to De. Ravdel by Mr, Bluneson. The Defendant _ fof about uly 13, 1978, to ehe credit of account number 012-701 at Security Nationa sank, Houston, Texas, styled "Legal Trust Ace count. In truth and tn fact, auch Legal Tease Account was a gene! fecal purpose bank account Into wnich the OeCendant deposited Ma fovn funds and fcon which the Defendant paid hls personal bL11e and ‘accounts, On July 26, 1979, the balance in the Legal Trust Account fell below the $570.00 oved by the Defendant to oF. Rivdel on be- alt of Hes Bluncson, No paynent sas made from Ehat account to be, Ravdel on BenaiE of He. Bluneson from Be date of the deposit, ‘ely 12, 1979 ko the date the account fell below the 6570.00 on July 26, 1979, and in truth and in fact, Me. luncaons BILL vas, to or. Ravdel by the Drvendant unttl March 6, 1981. uch conduct of the part of the Defondsnt constitutes prot fone misconduct as that tern {2 understcod in the law of the State of Texas, In violation of plsciplinicy Roles 110214003), NO2(AN(4), 1=1O2ENN(6), G-101CAD(31, THTONADCDY 901910218) of the Code of Professionst esponsibility for which the Detendant should be, by Enix Court, Glselplined. ouyr rounree (On oF betore June 29, 1978, the Defendont settled & persona Angury matter ne had undertaken for a client, Richard tateo, in the amount of $2,000.00. The eettionent draft vas deposited on (oF about dune 29, 1979, th the Detandant*s lav fem kcust account, umber 015-254, at Security Matlonal Bank, Houston, texts, auch account being ityled “Rogers, Rubenstein & Weight TrustaAceoint™ (& OF about Jane 29, 1979, the Defendant prepared check nusber 1100+ In the amount of $234.00, payable to De, Attold Revdel, fravn on the Rogers, Rubenstein 4 Weight Trust Account in payment of the medical expenses oved to Oc. Ravdel by He. TEED. | The Defendant thereafter, endorsed that check “A.'Ravdel*, without the anowibage oF consent Of Or, Ravdel, and deposited Le, Gn oF about Svly 2, 1979, 10 the ceedte of account munber 012-78) at securtey Yattonal Bank, Houston, Texas, atyled *hegal Trust Account™. tn truth and in fact, such Legal Trust Account was a general. pueposs Dank acount Lato witch the Defendant depostted Nia om fines and from which the Detendant paid his persona bitte and accounts. on uly 2, 1979, the balance in the Legal trust Accouoe fell below the £334.00 od by the Detendant to De. Ravdel on behalt of He, ‘eteOr and te Defendant Bld noe pry De. Mavdel in BERLE of He ‘ateo until march 3, 198 54eh conduct on the part of the Defendant constitutes protes ‘onal misconduct a4 that teem Le underatond In the law of the State of Texas, An violation of olactplinary mites 1-102(A)(31, TeHORCADEA, 1102EA) (6), 61010K9(3), T=H0HUAN13, 9102ER, and 9-102(8) of the Code of Professional Rexponlbitity for which the Defendant should be, by this Court, dlsctptines.. (On or abort Hovesber 20, 1981, the Defendant settled « work= e's compensation elsin in behalf of hls ebtent, anny wischeld. ae‘The Defendant deposited the settlement check in account number 9-¥0002030-01 at Ficelity savings and toan Aszoctation, oustons Tera, such account being styled “Howard A. Rubenstein®. such ‘ccount 9t Fidelity Savings and oem Atsociation sas not a trust of sterow ccount, and in fact vas a general purpose account into welch the Deondant had deposited and continued to fund, botn before and after the epost his oon 8 OF the epost of the HLtche 11 tettlenent, rurther, the oetendant geld hls pectoral Bliis and ‘sccounts feom the account above set forth. The Detendent falied to inten the separate identity of the funds belonging to ale client, Danny Mlsehetl, and in truth and in fact commingled veh unde wlth nis oun. 2002030-01, heceinabove further Identitied, fell below the net eeLénent amount oved by the Defendant to bis client, ne. Dummy Imlechell. The Defendant felled to promptly pay any anount to He. Witenel1 ntti Sanuary 1¢, 1902, after me. iltchell had been forced to hice another attorney to get the tun 7 50h conduct on the part of the Defendant constitutes peo sonal lsconduct as chat term La understood in the lav of the Stage of Texas, in violation of olsciplinacy nutes 1-10214)00), NORCAN(AY, NH10RtA(5), 1102000061, &10108I(39, TeIo1caeay, THaNANII, 9 this court; dlsctpt ines. finat heecing shereot, the Defendant be REPRIMANDED, susPEineD, or DEEDARNED 3 the tacts shall varcant, and chat the Plaintié pave seh other and further cellet as may be proper and authorised by the law and the Rules Governing the State BOE of Texas, Including 211 costs of court. Rospecttully sunattted, General ‘Counceote R. laaney ResTstint Geneve couse 1 malpe woar Aasstent comers counset Bee Card no. 13642000 Hache gate positocy ‘under ‘the cee Settee’ ss ShesSet yess AN,