Will Jeanne Winkler be disbarred?The woman who took money out of her client trust account and lost it all on a questionable "investment" begged for her license at a State Bar disciplinary proceeding last Tuesday. How "questionable" was the investment? From the LVRJ:
During a 13-hour hearing, Jeanne Winkler told a State Bar of Nevada panel that she put $270,000 of her own money into a scheme she claimed involved World War I bonds, the Chinese government, U.S. senators, and a man who worked directly for President George W. Bush. She also took at least $233,000 out of her client trust fund for the scheme, money she claims went to Thomas Cecrle, a former client and the former brother-in-law of [Family Court Judge Steven] Jones.We propose a bright-line rule: If you screw your clients out of an amount greater than your law school tuition, you don't get to keep your license. Fair enough?
Winkler is currently working as a paralegal at attorney Bret Whipple's office (who's website has, as of this writing, been hijacked by some architectural firm), and has reportedly paid $84,000 in restitution since her suspension two years ago. Apparently, Whipple pays his paralegals quite well.
Winkler's hearing will resume sometime in the next 30 days. The State Bar panel, which consists of three attorneys and a layperson, could disbar Winkler, continue her suspension or reinstate her license with or without conditions. Which will/should it be, commenters?
(LVRJ)
She should be disbarred!! She is an awful attorney that abuses people. I personally know of other incidents where she extorted money from fathers as she was the guardian ad litem in a custody case. "give me money or you will never see your child again."
ReplyDeleteThis shouldn't even be a question. If you loot the trust account because a little quick cash is needed to save someone from imminent death on Saturday and the funding level will return to where it should be on Monday -- maybe you keep your license.
ReplyDeleteI feel like an old man in a white t-shirt and boxers and black socks, cursing what the world has come to...
I agree. I mean how many times do you have to be told that the single biggest "no-no" as an attorney is taking money that belongs to clients?
ReplyDelete- They drilled it into us in Professional Responsibility class (among others) in law school.
- They drilled it into us when we prepared for the MPRE.
- They drilled it into us at "Bridge The Gap" after bar passage.
- They drill it into us at every ethics CLE that I've ever attended.
Some people just don't get it.
I support the proposed "Bright Line Rule."
ReplyDeleteCome on, everybody knows WWI bonds are a sure thing...
ReplyDeleteDon't you trust convicted felons with your money on investments of over $500,000? Was she romantically involved with the con man?? Did she really have $270,000 of her own money??
ReplyDeleteNo, probably and not likely.
What if the person pays back the cash, works under the supervision of an attorney for two years, and has to submit quarterly audits to the bar?
ReplyDeleteI believe a person should be suspended, but have the opportunity to earn their license back.
10:08,
ReplyDeleteI am 9:00 and I disagree completely unless the scenario is similar to my far-fetched hypothetical in the 9:00 comment (they also drilled the rule during bar review, which is where I got that hypo). In that case, a suspension would be warranted.
For one thing, lawyers who steal trust cash (as opposed, perhaps, to a mistake) arent always going to be in a position to repay. For another, if there's anything we should deter...
So 10:08 even though you committ a criminal act, steal someone elses money, as long as you give it back everything should be A-OK? Sorry. If my kid lies then tells me the truth he still gets in trouble for lying. It is the intent at the time of the crime that is why she should be disbarred not the fact that "no harm no foul". Lawyers are suppose to be people to be trusted. Our profession demands it! Cut the cancer and throw the trash out.
ReplyDeleteYeah disbarrment is the only logical and appropriate response in my opinon.
ReplyDelete9:16AM is dead on; I mean from day one in law school it is taught (stressed, emphasized, etc.) that there is to be no commingling, no misaccounting, proper billing practices, return of client's money if fired, etc.
This isn't an accident, or an irregularity of billing, or the accidental missing of a hearing or mismanagement of a case due to substance abuse problem, etc. This is clearly taking money that is not yours, putting it at risk and losing it. There could be no doubt that Winkler knew it was wrong and yet she did it anyways. 9:00AM has a point, if it was some dire emergency and you put it right back, it still is wrong but I could argue for a suspension; but outright taking of your client's money for a fraudlent or bunko investment is blatant, brazen, and intentional act.
If this wasn't in a lawyer-client context and you take your employer's money without permission that is embezzlement and you go to jail.
We lawyers have a tough enough time with potential clients and the bar needs to send a serious message that the rules are RULES and that they will be enforced.
Perhaps I've been watching too many movies about redemption and don't have the prosecutor mentality of punishing my way into heaven. I believe that people make mistakes, have the ability to learn from them, and should be given a second chance if they meet certain conditions.
ReplyDeleteThe attorneys who stolen client funds, been suspended, and allowed to come back into the practice of law without stealing funds again are examples of why second chances should be given. However, maybe a fairer resolution would to preclude these people from ever operating their own practice and handling client funds.
Regarding "second chances" and earning the license back:
ReplyDeleteSaid individual should be required to re-apply and re-sit for the Nevada bar exam (now offered twice per year!), including retaking the MPRE.
11:05 - Second chances? Please, we have been told time and time again you don't take clients money PERIOD.
ReplyDeleteShe did this not because she needed it for life and death situation - she did this because of GREED!
NO - no license back. She made the choice at that time and knew the situation..... let her go work in a casino and see what they would do to her. Do they still cut off the hand?
She should never be allowed to practice law again. She also should be prosecuted criminally for the theft. This is not a grey area here.
ReplyDeleteI am completely shocked that she had $270,000 of her own money and $200,000 plus in her trust account. What the F*$# am I doing wrong?
ReplyDeleteProverbs: A fool and his (or her) money are soon parted
ReplyDeleteI would like to say that I have more knowledge about this situation that casual observers. If the theft of over a quarter million dollars of client money does not get you disbarred then the State Bar should simply close and leave attorneys unregulated. One of the most frustrating things to those that Ms. Winkler has hurt is that she basically continues to work as an attorney, sometimes even still appearing in court for clients. "I invested trust money in a scam" is not an excuse (although there is some debate if a scam as opposed to Winkler just spending the money really happened).
ReplyDeleteI vote disbarrment.
"Judge Winkler" has a ring to it. She'd be a fine addition to the bench.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of re-taking the MPRE (at 12:41), what's the deal with Judge Miley sitting for the MPRE last week?
ReplyDeleteJeannie should have never been let out of the bottle. In response to retaking the bar exam, Jeannie repeatedly failed it even though she was the BAR/BRI rep that ran the course. She will be disbarred or suspended till she pays back the money. When you misappropriate that much money the only way you are getting your ticket back is with redemption and restitution.
ReplyDeleteWhat does anyone know about Ron Serota who is Boyd graduate.
Did she use any of those client funds she pilfered to further her 2nd career/alter ego as a race car driver?
ReplyDeleteYes, kick her out.
ReplyDeleteDo not let this woman practice law again! What about the NSF checks she wrote? I seem to remember her mug shot in the RJ Wasn't the D.A. bad check division after her for a felony? What about the employees she stiffed? All because she wanted to participate in a get rich scheme?
Then, after her suspension, she trots around court as if nothing has happened... Why? Because if the bar lets her back in, nothing has happened!
Let her go.
Are You f---ing kidding me? No way this crook should be a lawyer. Why is she not in prison and being forced to make restitution as part of her criminal sentence. She straight up stole AT LEAST $120,000 from mulitiple clients with no pretense of mistake or lawful dominion.
ReplyDeleteBar Counsel, the Disciplinary Committee, and the Supremes usually want to know if a person has a drug or gambling problem or both. Suspect there is a gambling problem here which is dangerous, compulsive, and destructive addiction. Therefore, in addition to making full restitution the attorney has to seek therapy and want to change. Was any of this presented at the disciplinary hearing. It is confidential and protected information usually. What surprises most is how lenient these disciplinary committees can be but usually not with stealing from clients.
ReplyDeleteYou must be kidding - there is nothing redeemable about this woman. She is a mini version of Lehman brothers - maybe she should seek employment there or AIG or one of the other massive crooks who keep getting off.
ReplyDeletePay back and keep her license. No self respecting/ethical licensing group would do this.
She is clearly a predator.
One role of an attorney is to ascertain the truthfulness of the person sitting across from you. Seemingly Winkler was duped by a felon – that makes me question strongly her abilities to ascertain truth and function as a licensed attorney.
ReplyDeleteAll attorneys in private practice are in it to make money and there is an element of greed to their character (as there is for most people). Yet, Winkler’s actions are not only rampant and uncontrollable greed, but arrogance and disrespect for the profession and truth.
A wise man once said greed with make you put blinders on, but not make you blind. She acted as if she were blind in this situation. What convinced her to put those blinder on; perhaps the better question is who convinced her to put those blinders on? Winkler was very good as sniffing out people who were not being truthful to her and for her to ‘fall’ for this alleged story is not like her. She likely would not have done so unless she was lead there by someone she trusted very deeply. Whom did she trust?
Her actions are reprehensible and her performance at the hearing in early March only highlight she still has no respect for the profession or her victims. While she admitted she harmed them, it was not reported that she begged for an ability to make her victims whole again (she’ll be a higher earner as an attorney as opposed to a paralegal), only that she worked too hard for her law license to make such a stupid mistake. Perhaps that is only because reporting that makes good copy, or perhaps that is what she actually said.
Winkler made horrible choices and did unimaginable damage to many people. Even more grievous as she was the person they hired to protect themselves. Her actions have caused a tragic scar on the face of the legal profession. As such, her choices should bar her from the practice of law for life. Moreover, it should bar her from working in or around the practice of law, as people will give her credence and or power, neither of which she deserves or can apparently manage.
Hi Lina! to Anonymous March 8th at 8:18a.m.
ReplyDeleteBrett Whipple is a loser, who must have the worst judgment imaginable. Brett Whipple, what is the REAL reason you keep that little carpet kitten Jeannie Winkler around? I heard your wife is none to happy with your decision.
ReplyDeleteThank God Brett Whipple lost his election as University Regent. You Brett Whipple are a fucking loser douchebag.