Tuesday, August 11, 2020
Page 1
Disbarred Lawyer Alan Broidy Pleads Guilty to Transportation of Stolen Property
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A disbarred Beverly Hills lawyer yesterday pled guilty in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, via video teleconference, to a charge stemming from his scheme to steal $512,527.56 from a client he represented in bankruptcy proceedings, $75,000 which he used to pay off a personal debt.
Alan F. Broidy, 65—who was admitted to practice on Nov. 29, 1979 and was disbarred on July 3, 2019—pled guilty to one count information of interstate transportation of stolen property.
That property was the $75,000, which he transferred on or about Aug. 16, 2016, from his Bank of America account in Los Angeles to the account of a creditor in New York.
Two Payments Made
Broidy had been directed by the Bankruptcy Court four days earlier to transfer $2,469,926 of his client’s money, which he held in a trust account, to the client’s creditors. He did wire $1,925,000 to the largest creditor, and made a payment to the U.S. trustee.
Of the remaining $532,527.56, all but $20,000—his agreed-upon fee for additional services—was to go to the bankrupt company’s manager, Gayle Levine.
He pocketed the money, but made promises to Lavine to pay off his debt to her. She reported Broidy to the State Bar, which instituted disciplinary proceedings on Aug. 29, 2018.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office filed an information in the District Court on June 23. Judge Dale S. Fischer has slated a Nov. 30 sentencing hearing, at which Broidy faces a statutory maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.
Debt Still Owed
A stipulated disposition in State Bar Court recites that at that point, Broidy still owed Lavine $370,916.76.
The lawyer was charged in State Bar Court with misconduct in a second matter. He represented two clients with potentially adverse interests without obtaining a written waiver and failed to pay them $150,000 he owed.
The stipulated disposition declares:
“[R]espondent engaged in a course of self-dealing and intentionally misappropriated a significant sum of entrusted funds. Respondent’s misconduct in these two client matters also involved other serious and significant breaches of his ethical and professional duties….[D]isbarment is the only appropriate sanction.”
Copyright 2020, Metropolitan News Company