In the Matter of: Andrew D. Thomas

Majority - Per Curiam

Yes, Andrew Thomas engaged in professional misconduct warranting disciplinary action through his neglect of a client’s case, mismanagement and conversion of client funds from his attorney trust account, failure to maintain candor with a tribunal, and inadequate supervision of non-lawyer staff. The Court adopted findings that Thomas violated rules related to inadequate oversight of his wife, Marcia, in managing the trust account (Professional Conduct Rules 5.3(a), (b), (c); Professional Conduct Guideline 9.1), allowing Marcia to sign trust account checks and open statements (Overdraft Rule 7(B)(1)), and failing to maintain trust account ledgers and written withdrawal authorizations (Admission and Discipline Rules 23(29)(a)(3), (5)). The Court found Thomas bound by his express stipulations that he committed conversion by using client funds for personal expenses (Professional Conduct Rules 8.4(a), (b)) and concluded that the hearing officer erred by not giving effect to these stipulations. The Court further found Thomas violated his duty of candor toward a tribunal (Professional Conduct Rule 3.3(a)(1)) by failing to list his trust account in his bankruptcy disclosures, especially since he knew the account was in disarray and he could not adequately identify whose money was in it. Regarding advanced fees for credit reports, the Court held these remained client funds until the expenses were incurred and should have been deposited in the trust account, thus depositing them into his operating account constituted improper commingling (Professional Conduct Rule 1.15(a); Admission and Discipline Rule 23(29)(a)(4)). The Court affirmed the finding that Thomas violated Professional Conduct Rule 1.3 by failing to act with reasonable diligence in "Client"’s case. The Court rejected several mitigating factors identified by the hearing officer, stating the record did not support immediate restitution or full compensation to Client and that Thomas's diagnosed attention deficit hyperactivity disorder did not explain, excuse, or mitigate the misconduct. Aggravating factors included Thomas's substantial experience, the long-term pattern of misconduct over several years, and the number of violations. Mitigating factors included his lack of prior disciplinary history, cooperation with the Commission, stipulations to streamline the hearing, and attestations of his skill and good reputation. Based on these considerations, the Court ordered a suspension of not less than 240 days without automatic reinstatement.