These disciplinary matters are before the Court on three separate Formal Complaints filed against Respondent Laura J. Burton and on which evidentiary hearings were held on September 13, 2000 and September 26, 2000. The State Bar and the special master have recommended disbarment in each of the disciplinary actions. However, the Review Panel, while recommending disbarment in S01Y1443 and S01Y1444, found by a vote of ten to one that the State Bar failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of disciplinary violations by Burton in S01Y1442. In accordance with the report of the Review Panel, we conclude that disbarment is appropriate in S01Y1443 and S01Y1444, but not in S01Y1442.
1. In Case No. S01Y1442 SDB Docket No. 3795 the State Bar brought a Formal Complaint against Burton alleging violations of Standards 63 a lawyer shall maintain complete records of all funds of a client coming into the possession of the lawyer and promptly render appropriate accounts to her client regarding those funds; and 65 A a lawyer shall not commingle her client’s funds with her own, and shall not fail to account for trust property held in any fiduciary capacity of Bar Rule 4-102 d arising from her representation of a client in a matter involving child custody and support. Our review of the transcript of the hearing before the special master reveals that the correct interpretation of Burton’s account statements and the deposits and disbursements reflected therein depends upon the resolution of conflicts between her testimony and that of the client, who was employed by Burton throughout the relevant period of time. The Review Panel found that both of these witnesses lacked the requisite credibility upon which to base findings of fact sufficient to prove the allegations of the Formal Complaint. The Review Panel specifically found that the client had removed Burton’s files without authorization, had filed multiple complaints against her prior attorneys and against judges, and had been convicted of interstate interference with custody, a crime of moral turpitude. Moreover, the client acknowledged that Burton was conscientious in her representation, was never observed to act unethically, worked diligently for little money, and was successful in some aspects of the client’s litigation.
