Eisenberg running scams while in prison

[boston bean]

http://www.mass.gov/obcbbo/bd03-018.htm

Count Two – Findings of Fact
31. At all times relevant to the petition for discipline, Leeland Eisenberg was an inmate in the custody of the Massachusetts Department of Corrections and was institutionalized at the DOC facility in Bridgewater (Ans. 35; Stip. 21). Eisenberg is not and was not a lawyer (Stip. 21).

32. On November 23, 1999, Eisenberg notified the Respondent that he was referring a man identified as “Martinez” to the Respondent for legal services (Ans. 36; Stip. 22). Eisenberg demanded that, if the Respondent took the case, he forward $200 to Eisenberg “as a finder or referral fee” (Ans. 36; Stip. 22; Ex. 13).

33. By letter dated December 10, 1999, the Respondent notified Eisenberg that he was responding to Eisenberg’s letter and stated, “I will agre to pay you $100 up front after accepting Martinez’ case and $100 additional after a successful conclusion” (Ans. 37; Stip. 23; Ex. 14).


Count Two – Conclusions of Law
34. Bar Counsel charges that by agreeing to pay a referral and/or “finders fee” to Eisenberg and to make further payment to Eisenberg at the “successful” conclusion of the case, the Respondent violated Mass.R.Prof.C. 5.4(a) (lawyer shall not share fees with nonlawyer) and 7.2(c) (lawyer shall not give anything of value to person for recommending the lawyer’s services). The Respondent contends that because Bar Counsel did not provide any evidence that he made any of the payments contemplated by the agreement, he did not violate the charged rules. While the Respondent plainly intended to violate Mass.R.Prof.C. 5.4(a) and 7.2(c), the fortuity that the offer and counter-offer did not amount to a completed illegal “deal” appears to preclude a conclusion that such violation occurred here.


Count Three – Findings of Fact
35. At all times relevant to the petition, DOC regulations prohibited inmates from “iving money or any item of value to, or accepting money or any item of value from another inmate, a member of his family or his friend, without authorization.” 103 C.M.R. 430.24(25). The Respondent knew that assisting inmates in transferring anything of value among them violated this regulation (Ex. 42, pp. 26, 27, 53, Ex. 43, p. 9). DOC regulations also prohibited inmates from “harging or receiving money or anything of value, either directly or indirectly, from another inmate, a member of his family, or any other person, for rendering legal assistance.” 103 C.M.R. 430.24(30). The Respondent knew that inmates could not charge or receive anything of value from other inmates for rendering legal assistance without violating this regulation (Ex. 42, pp. 45-47, Ex. 43, p. 9). Finally, DOC regulations prohibited “ttempting to commit any of the above offenses, making plans to commit any of the above offenses or aiding another person to commit any of the above offenses shall be considered the same as the commission of the offense itself.” 103 C.M.R. 430.24(33).

36. On October 1, 1998, the Respondent mailed a copy of a contract to Eisenberg at MCI Concord, which was an agreement between Eisenberg and George Sowyrda, who was also an inmate there (Ex. 15). The contract provided that Sowyrda would transfer $9,000 to Eisenberg, who would “invest said sum or sums annually, in stocks, bonds and other instruments & means common to investments otherwise, for the mutual and equal benefit of both parties to this contract”; after Sowyrda recouped his initial investment, he and Eisenberg would share any net profits equally (Ex. 15).

37. In the fall of 1998, the Respondent received two checks made payable to him, totaling $10,284, which were paid by a third person on Sowyrda’s behalf (Ex. 42, pp. 49-50, Ex. 43, pp. 47-49). The Respondent deposited these checks into his IOLTA account (Ex. 42, p. 49).

38. The Respondent disbursed these funds by sending Sowyrda $604, sending $9,000 to a brokerage house, and holding $400 for expenses (Ans. 44; Stip. 24; Ex. 16). The Respondent retained $280 as his fee for handling the transaction (Ans. 44; Stip. 24; Ex. 16).

39. The brokerage house returned the $9,000 to the Respondent because they did not want to handle money from inmates (Ex. 42, p. 50, Ex. 43, p. 52). At Eisenberg’s instruction, the Respondent then sent the money to a woman named Melissa, who refused to handle the money and returned the check to the Respondent (Ex. 42, p. 50).

40. Based on instructions from Eisenberg and Sowyrda, the Respondent sent $9,000 to Eisenberg, who sent $1,000 back to the Respondent, which he then sent to Sowyrda (Ex. 43, p. 56).

41. The Respondent was paid $300 by Eisenberg for handling the funds (Ex. 42, p. 55, Ex. 18). The Respondent understood that Eisenberg and Sowyrda used him to handle transferring the funds because such transfers were prohibited by the DOC regulations (Ex. 42, pp. 26-27, 53; see Ex. 27, Ex. 37, Ex. 43, pp. 10-11).

42. Throughout the time relevant to the petition, James Cook was an inmate of the DOC and the Respondent represented him in several lawsuits (Ex. 42, pp. 10-11, 14-18). The Respondent understood Cook to be a paralegal (Ex. 42, p. 19; see Tr. 98). During this time, Cook referred about ten other inmates to the Respondent for legal representation (Ex. 42, pp. 18-19, 39). The Respondent knew that Cook charged other inmates for legal work which Cook performed (Ex. 42, p. 38, Ex. 28, Ex. 32, Ex. 37, Ex. 38; see Tr. 98). In 1998 and 1999, the Respondent helped Cook obtain payment for his paralegal work by receiving, on Cook’s behalf, payments from other inmates for Cook’s services, including the following: