INDIAN RIVER COUNTY — Defense attorney Greg Eisenmenger told the court Friday that if he did what the Florida Bar says he did, he committed malpractice against his client, Ira Hatch.
On Thursday, he swore before the court that he would never sign or allow Hatch to sign anything admitting to inappropriately handling clients’ funds. But an order furnished by the Florida Bar Association showed exactly that.
“My actions in this are substandard,” Eisenmenger told Judge James Midelis before the jury was seated for testimony and adding his actions amounted to malpractice. Eisenmenger added, “I don’t remember signing it. But I’m not saying I didn’t do it.”
What impact Eisenmenger’s comment about malpractice might have on his ability to defend Hatch remains to be seen.
At issue was the “Disbarment of Consent Order” that both he and Hatch signed in 2007 that called for voluntary disbarment on Hatch’s behalf. The order the men originally signed used language that was not accepted by the Florida Bar and Supreme Court.
That language stated the defendant “does not contest” the charges. The language was changed to the defendant “admits” to the allegations that he misappropriated approximately $200,000 of his clients’ funds between July 1 and Aug. 31, 2007.
Eisenmenger attempted to argue to Judge Midelis that the “admission” is only that such violations as the ones listed in the order would constitute disbarment and punishment – not that his client admits to committing the alleged crimes.
Sheila Tuma, an attorney for the Florida Bar, testified that the Supreme Court requires the word “admit” and it does so in the context that the attorney in question (Hatch) did indeed commit those alleged crimes.
The disbarment order only pertained to two counts against Hatch and not the remaining 40-some counts of grand theft, money laundering and racketeering. In all, Hatch is accused of misusing $4.5 million of his clients’ money they had entrusted to his company, Coastal Escrow, which is no longer in operation.
Eisenmenger asked Judge Midelis to not allow the disbarment order to be entered as evidence, citing concerns that it would be prejudicial against his client and does not offer substantive value to the trial.
Judge Midelis said he disagreed, that the order’s information value outweighed the potential for prejudice and he allowed it to be entered.
Later in the day, after the jury was seated, Tuma was called to testify regarding the investigation the Florida Bar launched into Hatch’s law firm, Hatch & Doty P.A.
Within a week, the Florida Bar received an audit report that showed that at least $200,000 was unaccounted for in the firm’s trust account between July 1 and Aug. 31, 2007.
Armed with the report, Tuma drafted an emergency suspension of Hatch’s legal license and then called the attorney and left him a message. Within a few days, Tuma received a signed “Disbarment by Consent Order” from Hatch.
Tuma explained to the court that attorneys under investigation sometimes opt for a voluntary disbarment rather than go through a full investigation or court process.
Once Tuma received the order and filed it with the Supreme Court, the Florida Bar concluded its investigation into Hatch’s trust account.
Also during the trial Friday, jurors heard from a Florida Bar certified public accountant who audited Hatch & Doty’s trust account and from several clients who claim the money they had entrusted to Coastal Escrow, owned by Hatch, was lost and not recovered when the company closed in September 2007.
Court is expected to reconvene at 9 a.m. Monday.
