“The Board determined that, despite the serious nature of the respondents’ misconduct, the strong mitigating factors justify the imposition of a reprimand on Walrath and an admonition upon Gluck,” stated the DRB in their recommendation to the Supreme Court.
Details of the Disciplinary Review
The DRB delved into the specifics of the case, noting that Gluck and Walrath introduced their existing clients to the restaurant’s property manager, only to become investors themselves later that year. The lack of formal disclosure led to the DRB’s conclusion that they should have advised their clients to seek independent counsel, further compounding their ethical missteps.
Walrath’s actions were particularly scrutinized when he improperly notarized documents for absent investment group members—a decision he made following explicit instructions via email. Though considered unethical, the DRB did not heavily weigh this against him as it was not intended to advance his personal interests.
Reactions and Ongoing Implications
Following the disciplinary actions, neither Gluck nor Walrath has commented on the matter. Additionally, the state Office of Attorney Ethics has opted to withhold comments on ongoing ethics cases. This case, involving significant ethical lapses by high-profile attorneys, underscores the intricate balance between personal interests and professional responsibilities within the legal profession.
