Legal Ethics

Homeless Lawyer Is Terrible Lawyer, Says Supreme Court

As lawyers, we should be outraged over homelessness among our profession. But this particular homeless guy still seems like a jerk.

By  
on

There absolutely should not be such a thing as a “homeless lawyer.” It’s a professional degree. That’s supposed to stand for something, right?

And yet, it’s a condition all too common to our pages. The all but inescapable debt, sparse jobs (both public and private), and the rise of near minimum wage contract jobs have pushed a subset of the lawyer population into desperation. How could lawyers allow the profession to reach the point where attorneys are panhandling on Craigslist (though how do the indigent look for work if not the Internet?), living out of an office, and trading in apartments for campers? That fellow lawyers are pushed to such indignities demeans the profession as a whole.

On the other hand, there’s this homeless lawyer. This guy just seems like kind of a dick.

Steven Robert Lapham just earned himself a disbarment from the South Carolina Supreme Court for a litany of scam business practices ranging from hustling ladies whose sons are in jail:

Respondent met with the client at the detention center and quoted him a fee of $5,000.00. Respondent advised the client to pursue a plea deal because of his prior record. The client told Respondent he would be in touch, but ultimately decided not to hire Respondent.

Before the client could speak to his mother, Respondent called her and said her son wanted to retain him and asked for $700.00 as an initial fee. The client’s mother gave Respondent $700.00 but did not sign a fee agreement.

To telling clients to skip out on hearings:

Client hired Respondent to represent him on a charge of criminal domestic violence. Respondent went to the client’s home to discuss the case and subsequently agreed to represent him for $3,000.00. The client paid Respondent in full.

When the client was scheduled to appear in court for a first appearance, he called Respondent to plan where to meet before the hearing. Respondent misrepresented to the client he had taken care of it, and no one needed to appear for the hearing. The client received a letter from the court regarding his “no show” at the hearing, and subsequently obtained new counsel.

Sponsored

To flatly refusing to represent court-appointed clients:

Respondent was appointed to represent a client on several criminal charges. Respondent did not show up for a hearing; when the client called Respondent the next day, Respondent hung up on him. Respondent did not respond to the client’s requests for discovery materials, nor did he answer the client’s telephone calls.

And those are just three of the whopping FOURTEEN matters — along with “additional allegations” — the Supreme Court cited in its decision. The whole thing is a delight to read.

Lapham’s excuse for his actions?

Respondent appeared pro se at the hearing before the Panel on October 17, 2014, and was allowed to present evidence in mitigation. Respondent testified he has been homeless since 2009, when he sold the house he had shared with his former wife. Since then he has been living with other people, in his office, or in his car. He stated he had no money to pay restitution and was on food stamps…Respondent testified his difficulty has always been financial and he has never engaged in drug use. He expressed his difficulty learning the practice of law—he could not find a job and had to go into practice on his own without really knowing what he was doing.

Sponsored

Yes, that’s unfortunate. Yes, society failed him at some point. But don’t embrace any song and dance about how he deserves any sympathy because the harsh conditions of his homelessness contributed to his malpractice. He set out to scam people knowing that he was in no position to offer the level of legal counsel deserving of a few thousand dollars a pop. He did it because he wanted to score $5K for doing nothing rather than hunker down at that near minimum wage contract job. And consider the clients detailed in the opinion — they may have homes, but they certainly sound like the disadvantaged that Lapham targeted for his grifting.

Homelessness in the profession is a problem we should address. This guy’s disbarment, on the other hand, is not.

(The full opinion is available on the next page in all its glory.)

Homeless Lawyer Disbarred [Legal Profession Blog]
If you can’t get online, how do you find a job?

Earlier: This New Low For Document Review Will Surprise You
Homeless Lawyer’s Pursuit of Happyness
Homeless Lawyer Secretly Lived In Public Defender’s Office For 5 Months
Lawyerly Lairs: Lawyer Lives In RV Down By the River

1 2Next »

Topics

, , , , ,