The decision, published online on Monday, followed a 16-day hearing in 2021 that found Peter Darren Steven Hart committed misconduct when handling a family law case in 2013. The client came to Hart seeking spousal support after her marriage broke down. Once a highly paid mining executive, the court heard the marriage had a devastating effect on her mental health. “In the years leading up to their separation, she became unable to work, suffered a mental breakdown, attempted suicide and was involuntarily hospitalized,” according to the 2021 hearing documents. When she sought out Hart, she was still “under psychiatric care” and although her ex-husband had assets worth between $15 million and $17 million, she was “financially destitute.” Hart was found to have committed three different types of misconduct, which the court summarized as “exploiting a vulnerable customer for his own benefit” while providing “an abysmal quality of service”.
“IRREGULARLY UNJUST AN UNJUST” CONSERVATOR
In the 2021 hearing, the court found that Hart had pressured the client into an agreement where he would receive 20 percent of any financial settlement negotiated instead of paying an hourly fee. “The case was a simple family matter in which the client was certain to receive a large settlement. No special skills or services were required or provided. (Hart) provided minimal work,” the court found. Once that was settled, Hart never met with the client, never filed for spousal support, negotiated a settlement without consulting her and ultimately embezzled about $900,000 once the settlement was paid, according to 2021 hearing documents. Hart used a chunk of that money to take his entire staff on a trip to Las Vegas, the 2022 ruling says. In 2018, the client requested a review of Hart’s fees. According to the court’s decision, that review found that Hart’s service resulted in the client receiving “the worst outcome of the case that had gone to trial.” While Hart had pocketed $1,020,000 – which the court notes was far more than he was entitled to even under the “unreasonably unfair and unjust” payment agreement – the review found that the appropriate fee would have been $125,000. Hart was ordered to repay the difference of $895,000. “He has provided just over $18,000 – less money than he spent taking his entire office on vacation to Las Vegas,” the 2022 disciplinary decision states.
“CAVALIER” CIRCUIT FOR CUSTOMER’S VULNERABILITY
In addition to his financial misconduct, Hart was found to have breached his duty to provide a service “at least equal to that which would be expected of a competent lawyer in similar circumstances”. Failures on this front included not taking notes, not taking the customer’s instructions, acting in a way that directly contradicted the customer’s wishes, not providing the information needed to make decisions and making offers settlement without her knowledge or consent. the law court said. All this, the court found, was a “gross culpable neglect of duty” towards the client – particularly given her vulnerability. “Common sense requires that an attorney working with a mentally ill client take special care to ensure that the client has a good understanding of the case, the attorney’s advice, and has provided clear instructions,” the 2021 ruling states. “Unfortunately, in this case, the Defendant appeared to see the client’s mental illness as a reason to act without instructions and put his own interests above the interests of the client.”
FAILURE TO “ACT WITH INVOICE AND INTEGRITY”
The court found that Hart was “willfully dishonest” on several occasions. These included telling the client she believed she could still seek spousal support after negotiating a settlement that expressly excluded that option, lying about why she canceled a scheduled mediation session, and misleading her about how much she would could expect from a settlement. he said. “More than failing to act without honesty, candor and integrity, the Defendant intentionally defrauded the Client for his own gain,” the 2021 ruling states.
IMPACT ON CUSTOMER
The 2022 disciplinary decision outlines some of the ongoing consequences for the client, who hired Hart as an attorney nearly a decade ago. “She is financially destitute. What should have been an adequate divorce settlement to ensure her future financial security has been decimated (Hart),” the ruling states, adding the ongoing legal process to recover her money, as well as disciplinary procedure. it prolonged her suffering and undermined her attempt to heal. “The client has suffered irreparable emotional and financial harm from which she will never recover.”
CONSEQUENCES FOR A LAWYER
The proposed penalty is expulsion. However, the court notes that Hart has been barred from practicing law since 2021 as punishment for his misconduct in another case. However, the court said it is the only appropriate consequence for the “intentional and calculated abuse of a mentally ill client for (the attorney’s) own financial gain. The need to condemn and deter similar misconduct was also emphasized, as was the way in which Hart’s actions had “discredited” the legal profession. Hart did not attend the hearing where the decision on the disciplinary action was made. He has also been ordered to pay the law firm’s costs, which total $60,840.
