The Respondent Worked For Fleming As An Independent Contractor
By the time the respondent was hired, Fleming had already commenced, without court authorization, to use receivership assets to pay salaries for his employees and defray general office expenses. By 1983, Fleming had delegated to the respondent the day-to-day responsibility for managing the receivership. To the extent that she was supervised, the respondent was encouraged by Fleming to use receivership assets to pay salaries, vacation time, office expenses, rent, and the costs of clerical help and office equipment. In 1983, the respondent worked for Fleming as an independent contractor. She received $18,200.70 of USIC funds for about 207 hours of work attributed to USIC. An additional amount of unrecorded time was spent on purely clerical matters. From about 1984 until about January 1993, except for 1986, the respondent and Fleming had an agreement in which the respondent received a weekly payment characterized as a “salary” and the use of Fleming’s office, equipment, and clerical help for cases she brought into the office. In return, the respondent worked on Fleming’s cases and paid him 80% of the fees she earned from her own clients. Except for 1987, the respondent’s weekly payment or salary was paid entirely from USIC funds. The respondent’s salary included paid vacation, and there was no deduction for days the respondent did not work.
The respondent left Fleming’s office in about August 1985 to work for another firm. In January 1987, she returned to work for Fleming. She and Fleming then began to hold themselves out as the firm of Fleming & Galat. In 1989, Fleming and the respondent opened an office under the name of Fleming & Galat in Newburyport, Massachusetts. The respondent carried on the private practice of law from this office. In January 1993, the respondent severed her business relationship with Fleming; she continued, however, to hold herself out as “Fleming & Galat”. The vast majority of the respondent’s time from 1984 through 1995, except for 1986, was spent on her own personal cases and Fleming’s cases other than USIC. The respondent’s work during this period included representing Fleming personally in a number of civil cases pending in a variety of courts. Most of the work the respondent performed for USIC was purely clerical and administrative. The respondent kept either no or inadequate records of the time she spent on USIC matters. After opening the Newburyport office, the respondent had custody of the USIC bank accounts. Fleming authorized the respondent to sign his name to checks drawn on the USIC checking account and to make transfers among the several accounts that Fleming had opened as USIC’s receiver. There was no court order authorizing the respondent to manage or disburse USIC funds.
|
Corporate Accounting 
Did You Know?