Cited by

We addressed a somewhat similar situation in Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Krasnoff, (La.

See Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Krasnoff, (“Indeed, when an attorney relies upon a ‘black box’ defense, viz., that he kept client funds secretly but securely in a private safe or similar unregulated depository, the likelihood of actual embezzlement is so great, and the policy of professional responsibility in protecting the client from such risks so

The committee relied upon the case of Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Krasnoff, wherein this court held that when an attorney relies upon a “black box” defense, viz., that he kept client funds secretly but securely in a private safe or similar unregulated depository, the likelihood of actual embezzlement is so great, and the policy of professional responsibility in protecting the clien

Rule 1.15 of the Rules of Professional Conduct; Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Krasnoff

Citing Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Kras-noff, 3 the committee found the respondent failed to maintain funds entrusted to him in a fiduciary account, which creates a presumption that he misappropriated the funds.

(the burden of going *592 forward with the evidence is on the attorney who failed to deposit clients' funds in a separate bank account and asserted that he had used other means to safeguard the funds).

personal adversity of an attorney cannot excuse the failure to deposit client's funds in a separate account, to refrain from removing or using those funds unless due him beyond dispute, and to deliver funds owed the client when requested.

LSBA v. *784 Krasnoff, (La.

depository, the likelihood of actual embezzlement is so great, and the policy of professional responsibility in protecting the client from such risks so strong, that it should be presumed that the attorney is guilty of embezzlement unless he successfully carries both the burden of going forward with the evidence and the burden of persuasion otherwise.” at 1005 (La.,1986).