wells-30541-9-public-censure.pdf (2007)

Original PDF Document

---

Download Official Record (wells-30541-9-public-censure.pdf)

Go to Top

Alternative Accessible HTML

BOA

mnrscnrngfirgrsmcrnr _. ‘ Exaccttvs Secretary
BOARD Oil-PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
- or me
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

IN RE: MURRAY B. WELLS, BPR'NO. 21749 FILE NO. 30541-9.—LC '
Respondent, an attorney licensed ’
to practice law in Tennessee
(Shelby County)

PUBLIC CENSURE

The above complaint was filed against Murray B. Wells, an attorney licensed to practice

law in Tennessee, alleging certain acts of misconduct. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 9, the

Board of Professional Responsibility considered these matters at its meeting on December 11, ‘

2009.

Respondent was an owner/operator of Memphis Escrow 8:: Title Company. He was an

authorized title agent/closing attorney with Chicago Title Company. Chicago Title and

Respondent had an agreement Where Respondent certified titles as the basis for Chicago’s

issuance of title connnitments tc purchasers and lenders in real estate transactions. Respondent

was to maintain an escrow/mist account and reconcile that account monthly underlain agreement

with Chicago Title.

Respondent employed a non-lawyer, Rusty Williams, to handle closings and disburse the

settlement proceeds in accordance with the sale/purchase contract and the lender’s instructions.

Discrepancies in several real estate closings revealed that Respondent’s lay employee had been

. writing checlcs to himself from the escrow account at Respondent’s Office. In addition, legal '

documents were not properly recorded and the proper disbursements were not made to Chicago
Title for its portion of the title insurance premiums. Respondent se1f~reported these facts to the

Board of Professional Responsibility and Chicago Title. Chicago Title asserts a total loss of

approximately $126,000.00 'for lost premiums, out~of~poeket expenses for'correcting recording

errors/omissions, and unremitted title search fees. ‘ A M

Mr. Williams’ conduct was reported to the police on August 1, 2007, by the Respondent

and Mr. Williams has made about $8,000.00 in restitution. Mr. Williams has been indicted in

relation to the embezzlement. A large portion'of the embezzled money was due Respondent’s

' company. - Respondent admits that he failed to do :nionthly- audits r-ot‘ the trust accounts.

Respondent asserts that he “periodically and regularly” examined the accounts. I

By his actions, Respondent has violated RFC 5303) and 1.15. If Respondent had been

supervising his non-lawyer closing agent more closely, and especially doing more thorough

reconciliations of his trust accounts, the theft would have become apparent more quickly and the

losses could have been minimized. By virtue of his agreement with Chicago Title, Chicago Title

Iwas Respondent’s client. While no consumers Were monetarily affected, Chicago Title has lost a

significant sum due to Respondent‘s inaction and failure to'properly supervise his non—lawyer

. employee and to properly reconcile his trust accounts. Respondent has failed to provide

recompense to his client. . I _

By the aforementioned facts, Murray 13. Wells, has violated Rules of Professional _

Conduct 5.3(b) (failure to supervise non—lawyer assistant) and 1.15 (safekeeping property) is

hereby Publicly Censored for these violations.
f/ -
FOETI—IE BO OF
P73FESSI A RESZEDNSIBTIII Y
,1“;

5535- essr, Qhair

Date.
__.[._._. -l .l

Go to Top

Assistance Request

Request Accessibility Assistance

Name

Email

Phone

What do you need help with?

The HTML version is missing content

The HTML version contains errors

The reading order is incorrect or confusing

I need help understanding the content

I need a different alternative format

Other

Preferred format

Additional details

Urgency Urgent Soon Not urgent

Go to Top