• Home
  • News
  • Houston Lawyer Loses License Because of Failure to Pay Debts

Legal Ethics

Houston Lawyer Loses License Because of Failure to Pay Debts

Posted Apr 14, 2009 7:28 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

A Houston lawyer who failed to comply with a plan to repay student loans and other personal debt will lose his law license as a result.

A Texas appeals court said lawyer Frank Santulli III did not have the trustworthiness needed to represent clients because of his failure to comply with the repayment plan, the National Law Journal reports. The appeals court cited the possibility that “he will harm a client, obstruct administration of justice or violate the disciplinary rules."

Santulli told the NLJ his loan debt was about $67,000. He plans to appeal.

Comments

1.

unperson
Apr 14, 2009 10:20 AM CST

if the traitors at the ABA and the texas state had not sold out the working class lawyers by allowing the law schools to flood the market with 5 times as many new lawyers as are needed, then MAYBE this lawyer Santulli could have made his student loan payments.

To all you working class, non-biglaw lawyers out there, remember this—the ABA, the law schools, and the state bars are your ENEMY.

Flag this comment

2.

gary
Apr 14, 2009 11:10 AM CST

And why ABA, state bars & law schools are enemies or lawyers or general public? Of course they have to make a buck by accrediting law schools, administering exams, creating their own legends of one law school or the other, that later becomes a true fairy-tail legend.  However, it has nothing to do with greed, sense of entitlement or people who think they can get away with it. You take a loan, you pay for it, or go in default & lose your license. Many people would not trust such lawyers, simple there no guarantees they would keep confidential matters as such, if they can’t pay few hundred bucks a month or less for their loan. People should stop living lavishly, or buying things they can’t afford, then they’ll pay loans. Oh, I see it’s one of those things: you borrow their money, but give back your own?

Flag this comment

3.

PubliusEsq
Apr 14, 2009 11:45 AM CST

Here is a good example of completely backward and archaic legal mindset.  Why not just throw him in debtor’s prison.

Here is justice from a state that brought you Enron and George Bush.

The lawyer has been treated unfairly. 

Let me get this straight, he is being disbarred for offenses he might possibly commit?  His biggest mistake was not leaving Texas after he graduated form law school.

The guy is getting screwed by the ABA, because they just keep accrediting law schools and flooding the profession with lawyers to the benefit of the banks and law school sand against the public interest.  He is getting screwed by the law schools because they publish fraudulent employment statistics and he is getting screwed by the court because the only injustice they see is that he is not sticking to his payment plan so they disbar him This is a laughable miscarriage of justice.

If he could make a decent living practicing law he could pay his debts.  However, with so many lawyers scrounging for work, he can’t.  Now, because of the wisdom of the court, he will be working at Starbucks and certainly unable to repay his debts.

The judge is the one who should be disbarred for misrepresenting that he has some ability to think.  It would be reasonable to disbar the lawyer if he commited some offense, but to disbar him for some future offense he might possibly commit is utter insanity.  The judge is working for the collection agencies, its outrageous

The ABA needs to be stripped of its function as an accrediting body and replaced by a qausi governmental body that proportionately represented the practice areas of the profeesion with solos and small firms being the most heavily represented because they comprise the largest segment of the profession.  The ABA represents only big law.

And flooding society with so many lawyers scrouging for work just encourages an overlitigious environment because, with not enough work, lawyers are not turning down suits that should not be filed.

Flag this comment

4.

PubliusEsq
Apr 14, 2009 11:53 AM CST

And the ABA needs to be replaced because there must be a moratorium on the accreditation of new law schools.  The banks and law schools are the reaping profits from the backs of law students and taxpayers.  Many of those graduating from law schools will never even find a job in the legal profession, even though they were told they would.  It is a shameful and wasteful ponzi scheme.

There is possibly some connection between the banks and the leadership of the ABA.  It would be interesting to find out.

Flag this comment

5.

EricEsquire
Apr 14, 2009 12:51 PM CST

Does Texas revoke medical licenses for doctors who fail to repay their student loans? How about plumbers, hairdressers/barbers, or real estate brokers, are their licenses in jeopardy if their student loans fall into default? If not then an equal protection claim should be brought to demonstrate how lawyers are subjected to abusive restrictions on their right to practice their trade unlike other licensed professionals in Texas.

Flag this comment

6.

attorney
Apr 14, 2009 12:51 PM CST

Your fitness to practice law shouldn’t be judged by how you pay your debts. Now I can see this being an issue at the character & fitness level but for a practicing attorney. That’s deep. I will make sure that I pay don’t skip on my Direct TV bill this month.

Flag this comment

7.

K.
Apr 14, 2009 5:26 PM CST

Wow, that is messed up. 

To read the whole story on the National Law Journal website you need to register (it’s free and quick, but they want your email address.)

As poster #6 brought up, this did arise when Mr. Santulli was admitted to the bar in 2001.  He got a probationary license on condition that he pay down a “substantial amount of student loan and personal debt.”  (Vague enough for you?  All I pay is the minimum payments on my student loans, and that feels pretty darned substantial to me.)  The Texas Bar ordered him to pay off “a substantial amount”  or discharge some debt through bankruptcy, and when the bar reviewed his situation, they found he had done neither, so they recommended revoking his license—why?  Because he MIGHT BE TEMPTED to short-change clients or commit fraud against his clients! 

Sounds like somebody in Texas must be high on crack, and I don’t mean Mr. Santulli.

Anyone out there in Texas whose practice might encompass this, take pity on this guy and represent him, please!

Flag this comment

8.

agpc
Apr 14, 2009 6:42 PM CST

Thanks for approving the outsourcing of legal jobs ABA!  And your telemarketers wonder why I tell them to never call me again whenever you try and sell your worthless membership…

Flag this comment

9.

david friedlander
Apr 14, 2009 8:44 PM CST

this is sickening, vomit inducing and outright evil. The ABA accredits thousands of new schools, OUTSOURCES legal work that new grads depend on and then turns around and disbars those same fresh law graduates who are unable to find legal work. Ironically, the lawyer who successfully scams a client allowing the proceeds of said scam to pay off his loans is considered more noble to the profession than a law graduate who is genuinely struggling to find employment.

Flag this comment

10.

B. McLeod
Apr 15, 2009 12:41 AM CST

I think the article reflects the decision was by a Texas appellate court, not the ABA (which is not the licensing authority for Texas lawyers).

Flag this comment

11.

Stephen Boyce
Apr 15, 2009 10:51 AM CST

Gotta love the ALBA (American Liberal Big-Law Association).  They never met a terrorist who wasn’t innocent or an American soldier who wasn’t guilty.

Flag this comment

12.

voiceofreason
Apr 15, 2009 3:03 PM CST

Has anybody noticed that he graduated in 1998 and didn’t pass the Bar until 2001, and thus was probably 3 years in default on his loans at the time of his licensing???  That this case is basically about an agreed order he SIGNED and then failed to abide by repeatedly?  That his client’s trust funds are in jeopardy if his bank gets garnished?  None of the examples mentioned above - doctors, plumbers, etc. - keep their client’s money in trust.  Lawyers have been caught stealing from their clients due to debt pressure - that’s all this is about.  All he needed to do was get on some kind of payment plan and he would have been fine.

Don’t get me wrong.  Law schools are overpriced and student loans are burdensome.  I just scrimped together every bit of my bonus and tax refund to finally pay mine off after 8 years.  But I knew going in that you take a risk when you go to a law school - you might not pass your classes.  You might flunk the bar exam repeatedly.  And all that money is still due and owing.  And if you don’t repay it, and eventually manage to pass the bar exam, they are going to want to ensure that you’re not so desperate that you’re going to steal your client’s money!

Flag this comment

13.

danaesq
Apr 17, 2009 1:32 PM CST

I don’t know if they still do it in Nevada, or if they would even admit to doing it, but at one time if the State Bar even “thought” that your debt coming out of law school was so high that you would not physically be able to get a job capable of earning enough money to pay off the loans they would not even allow you to sit for the exam.  Now I have been out of school and working full-time for about 19 years, and I did go into forebearance a couple of times early on, but I am still paying my loans back.  It is certainly hard to pay back law school bills if the state where you live won’t let you get a job in the first place because your law school education, and possibly undergrad also, was too expensive.  To date, I have not heard of one person challenging such a determination, let alone challenge and win.  The State Bar has a HUGE amount of power and pull.  I also understand that they are worried about lawyers getting into trust account difficulty and possibly running off with client money.  Still, how about letting the lawyer at least try to get his affairs straightened out as quickly as possible and at least wait for him to commit an offense or financial related crime before giving him what amounts to a career death sentence.  Some things are just plain wrong, no matter the concern and no matter the potential consequences.

Flag this comment

14.

Anonymous
Apr 18, 2009 4:08 PM CST

voiceofreason, it’s pretty presumptious to ASSUME someone is going to steal just because of the actions of OTHER PEOPLE.  What about evaluating people on their PERSONAL merits, not those of everyone in their socioeconomic class???  Why not just ban all people who aren’t rich from going to law school? 

The state bars & the profession as a whole should admit to being elitist and racist (remember most of the people who don’t have money are members of minority groups).  Shut up with that welcoming diversity nonsense since it’s total crap—they would probably admit someone who had to resort to stripping to pay school loans over someone who legitimately made effort but didn’t have rich relatives or even credit worthy co-signers at their disposal.  I’m glad at least some people here have the good sense to see that personal finances have NOTHING to do with your ability as a lawyer—maybe you should see if someone ACTUALLY stole money BEFORE essentially committing defamation of character.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.