The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Lawyer Pleads Guilty to Repeatedly Forging Court Orders and Judgments
From a Justice Department press release last month (UPDATE: see the plea agreement for more details):
Andrew Gavin Wynne, 35, pleaded guilty in front of U.S. District Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk to five felony counts of identity theft.
Wynne admitted that while representing at least 30 clients, he created fictitious documents with forged signatures of judicial officers in St. Louis and St. Louis and St. Charles counties. Included among those were bogus court orders, judgments and emails authored by at least ten separate judges, Wynne's plea agreement says, some of which purportedly awarded money to his clients.
In one example in the plea agreement, Wynne sent an email to a client on Feb. 28, 2020 that included a fictitious judgment and decree of dissolution with a forged judge's signature. That divorce decree said Wynne's client's marriage was dissolved and the parties would have joint legal and physical custody of the minor children. The decree also said the client was owed $900 per month child support, $5,000, a vehicle and other assets.
On July 21, 2020, Wynne emailed another client an order with a forged judge's signature that claimed $20,200 in payments were owed to that client.
On both occasions, Wynne told his clients not to discuss the documents that he'd sent….
On Oct. 27, 2021, the Missouri Supreme Court suspended Wynne's law license after the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel said there was probable cause to believe he posed "a substantial threat of irreparable harm to the public" due to misconduct….
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Derek Wiseman and Kyle Bateman are prosecuting the case.
Not related to the Internet takedown / forged court order scams that I wrote about (see Part II of my Shenanigans: Internet Takedown Edition), but I thought people would find it interesting for other reasons.
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I’m thinking drugs or drink here — and who exactly polices the bar?
If a client relied on those forged documents as being legit, such as in the case of the divorce/child award, what legal liability would he be exposed to for doing so?
I ask because that will be a central issue at the Trump Crucifixion — if Trump did exactly what his (now disbarred) attorney told him to do, then how can *he* be charged with a crime? He trusted the lawyer and the legal profession is trusted with being a self-policing profession with the public being expected to trust it to do so.
Hence, the argument would be that Cohen ought to have been disbarred earlier and if anyone, the Bar should be liable.
We forget sometimes that although he can write and allegedly become a doctor, he is still just a horse.
Just the back end of one.
Even a non-lawyer knows that reimbursing your lawyer for hush-money paid to a third party is not a legal expense. I don’t see how Trump can claim that he he relied on his lawyer’s advice for this. Here’s a parallel example: Doe throws a fancy party. His lawyer pays the bill for the food, booze, etc. Doe reimburses his lawyer. He can’t claim the payment as legal expenses because he knows perfectly well that these were personal expenses that happened to go through his lawyer.
OK, where does the money for law firm Christmas parties come from?
Yes, client fees.
Reimbursing your lawyer for making a settlement payment in a legal matter most definitely is a legal expense. Though the expertise you need to know that is not legal but accounting. Look up the rules for GAAP. Yes, there can be scenarios where washing payments through a lawyer would be pretextual and hence violations of GAAP. Nothing done in this case, however, meets that scenario.
One day there might be an “identity theft” charge that is recognizable as “identity theft” to an ordinary person.
You have to remember that the average IQ is (by definition) 100 and that half the population is below that. Only half the population go to college, and of that, half go to a Community College — and the national graduation rate is something like 60%.
So you have a lot of people who wouldn’t recognize the documents as forged, although I am not sure that *I* would recognize a forged legal document. (If I’ve never seen a legitimate one, how would I know this one wasn’t?)
I am going back to my initial question — if I am not an attorney, how am I supposed to know *not* to do what my lawyer is telling me to do?
Upon being presented with a court order, your lawyer verifies that it’s an actual court filing by checking with the court of record. Every single time. I’d say you were overthinking it but you’ve presented no evidence you overthink anything.
If it were *my* lawyer who was fabricating the order?
Don’t care what his lawyer might have said, Trump had to know that paying for an NDA wasn’t a corporate business expense.
But it’s not like Cohen invoiced him separately for the payment…. It was his payments to Cohen that he took as a business expense.
But the statute of limitations for criminal liability for claiming personal expenses (MANY of his payments to Cohen?) as business expenses has anyway expired, I understand. And that’s anyway between him and the IRS, not Bragg.
I’d like to see an accurate statistic on how many corporations consider NDAs and paying off “nuisance suits” to be legitimate business expenses — and the IRS take on that.
Walmart was(is?) different because it defended every suit — which means….
As a matter of GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles), you are wrong – paying for an NDA can be a legitimate corporate business expense.
Agree with the rest of your comment, though.
It wasn’t a corporate expense at all — it was Trump’s personal life.
Tell Steve Wynn that — at a high level, the two become co-mingled.
I need many more details on this. So many questions. The biggest, of course, is what the guy’s plan was when his clients asked where their money is. Oh, and the poor bastard who thought his marriage was over. Bet his wife looked at him like he had several heads that day he stopped over to pick up the kids. So many questions.
He’s 35, so he hasn’t been practicing for long. Did he think he’d discovered that one weird trick Big Law doesn’t want us to know?
So many questions.
That was my first thought too. How do you do that and think you’re not going to get caught?
Every embezzler thinks they will get away with it.
They often do — the embezzlee quietly eats the loss because they neither want the publicity nor the effort of prosecution. I saw this a lot at UMass, they would require the funds stolen from students be refunded, but UM would eat the rest and offer a settlement in exchange for a resignation.
Often it was more of a Ponzi scheme, an attempt to pay current bills out of money “borrowed” with the intent of returning it in the future, and like every Ponzi scheme, it spirals… And a few other times, it was random thefts that grew — and wouldn’t have been noticed.
Only the most reckless embezzlers can compare to what this guy was up to.
I say again, drugs or drink, the latter stage of the downward spiral of addiction — and the person doesn’t think about consequences or even long term.
Depending on the specific details, he well may have bought himself another week (or even a day or two) and might even have been able to get some badly needed cash from his clients. He also may have been playing games with client funds.
“Wynne admitted that his crimes caused a loss of between $250,000 and $550,000.” And how would they cost that? That’s why I am thinking what I am thinking.
And you (likely) are presuming he was doing this sober — don’t.
Was that wrong? Should I not have done that?
Why wasn’t this in state court? These things must violate regular state criminal laws.
Why did the FBI/USA prosecute the Mass State Police for overtime fraud and not AG (now Governor) Maura Healey?
The state did disbar him, and one possibility was a request that the USA deal with this because the state folks had conflicts of interests. Another is that the FBI had resources that the state didn’t in terms of both investigating forgeries and computer forensics.
A third possibility is that judges as witnesses before other state judges could have gotten messy in a way it wouldn’t in Federal court.
IANAA — but do listen to Howie Carr comment on Mass Judges and maybe MO has someone like him out there…
Oh, and the other possiblity here is a gambling debt, either legal or illegal. Or financial difficulties, eg trying to keep a property out of foreclosure. Or an expensive girlfriend. I saw all of this at UMass and the person always *thought* they could make up the stolen money in the future, they were just borrowing it.
Surely some people do get away with embezzlement. The mother of an acquaintance worked as a cashier in a grocery store. Every Friday for 20 or 30 years she took a twenty dollar bill from the register (this was in the 1960s when it was worth more) and put it into her savings account. It was a nice nest egg for a working class woman when she retired.
(Of course, it’s possible that the owner of the store knew about the thefts and didn’t care, figuring that it was a way of compensating a reliable employee tax-free to her, while he ended up deducting the cost in the “Cash Over and Short” or “Inventory Shrinkage” category.)
Illustration of: Pigs get fed, hogs get slaughtered.
Her individual thefts were so small [even then] that it was easier to get away with it.
Likely the owner did the same thing. Cash businesses before computers left no paper trail.
He should ask for the leniency shown to Kevin Clinesmith.
This is interesting: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ex-associate-indicted-for-allegedly-faking-legal-documents-in-court-cases-for-more-than-a-year
From the linked article:
Menees first learned of a problem July 1, when a client contacted him because she hadn’t signed a consent order filed in her case, according to an affidavit by Menees in the ethics case. His firm hired a private investigator.
Menees reported Wynne to Missouri’s disciplinary counsel July 15. He told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that Wynne’s behavior was “inexplicable,” and his motives were “perplexing.”
From the above, it seems Wynne also forged a client’s signature. The client discovered the forgery and told one of the partners who then reported Wynne to the disciplinary counsel.
This guy must be an addict and/or have significant psychiatric issues.
And even with this, the client had to trust what the other lawyer told him — and would have been bleeped if both of them had been in on it.
So I again ask my question — if clients are supposed to trust their attorneys, how can there be mens rea if they do?
Only fools trust their attorneys.
Or, “Trust, but verify.”
If you’re going to forge a court order, don’t use a real judge’s name.
(Also: don’t forge a court order.)
Why? If you sign it “The Honorable No-Judge-Here-By-That-Name” the forgery is even more easily detected, no?
I was thinking of something a little less blatant, like “The Hon. Thomas Smith.” It sounds legit; most people aren’t going to look.
I’m guessing this wasn’t detected b/c a judge noticed.
Anything to avoid addressing the arrest of Donald Trump . . .
or to avoid addressing the recent wave of right-wing censorship . . .
or to avoid addressing the mounting revelations regarding Fox “News” . . .
therefore . . . this crap.
Carry on, clingers.
And yet, you keep coming back. What does that say about you?
“As a dog returns to his vomit, so does a fool repeat his folly.” Proverbs 26:11.
Does quoting Proverbs make you one of the Rev. Costco’s “clingers”?
No free swings at the marketplace of ideas.
And I like mocking hypocrites, bigots, and culture war losers. This place is a smorgasbord.
And I like mocking hypocrites, bigots, and culture war losers.
Yes, your inferiority complex. Time to find a new therapist.
You seem to like bigots. I don’t. Different strokes.
I intend to continue to watch the culture war and the marketplace of ideas sift this.
How about you? Having fun in modern America, clinger?
So sad to be you with tedious repetition your only outlet.
Why would I be sad? Semi-retired after several successful careers. No debt (except whatever I put on a credit card, to be paid off the day the bill arrives). A great family. Children with advanced degrees. Wonderful grandchildren. Enjoyable pro bono work. My side has won the culture war. My country will continue to improve, congruent with my preference. The political positions I dislike continue to be stomped by better Americans. I’ll see Springsteen a half-dozen times this year. The Stones are planning to tour this fall.
Life is good, especially if you are not a bigoted, poorly educated, downscale, disaffected right-wing loser in modern America. You’ll just have to take my word for it on the satisfactions of being an American on the right side of history, clingers.
This is what you get when you do not require law students to take “Professional and Ethics”, but instead require them to take “Racism in Technology”.
I’ll be surprised if you can find me an accredited law school in which professional ethics isn’t a required course, or in which racism in technology is even offered as a course. But feel free to knock yourself out looking for one.
I’ll be surprised if you can find me an accredited law school in which professional ethics isn’t a required course, or in which racism in technology is even offered as a course.
Here’s one (not only offered, but required) by the law school at a little university named “Stanford”. You might not have heard of them, but I’m pretty sure they’re accredited.
https://law.stanford.edu/courses/discussion-1l-race-and-technology/
There are also quite a few others. If there’s someone in your home who knows how to use an internet search engine this might be a good time to have them teach you how to do so as well.
Yes, I’m sure this is the anecdote CindyF heard and then generalized to make about law schools all over.
The usual zealot MO.
Her generalization is accurate.
Or do you really think Woke law schools all over don’t have similar absurd requirements?
Name one that you think doesn’t and let us disabuse you.
Prove they do or stfu.
Actually, just stfu.
Yes, Krychek took the bait, but no, Cindy’s generalization is still false, because all US law students (except those seeking to practice in Wisconsin and Puerto Rico, for some reason) are still required to take professional ethics and/or pass a separate bar examination on professional responsibility (the MPRE).
(Aside: I wonder if Wisconsin enjoys significantly more legal professional misconduct as a result?)
Speaking of interesting criminal proceedings:
MAGA: My Associates Getting Arrested.
MAGA: My Aides Going Away.
MAGA: My Attorneys Giving Allocutions.
MAGA: My Affidavits Getting Adjudged.
MAGA: My Accounts Getting Audited.
and now
MAGA: My Ass Got Arrested.
MAGA: My Ass Got Arraigned.
Carry on, clingers!
…and in other news, the Ninth Circuit affirms that Stormy Daniels owes Trump’s attorneys $121,000 in legal fees.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/stormy-daniels-donald-trump-legal-fees-1234709641/
I doubt Prof. Volokh thinks you clowns are helping.
So, by all means . . .
carry on, clingers.
Just read the Trump indictment (actually two docs, one is the legal charge, the other a “Statement of Facts.”) You can download them off Scribd.
The statute under which he is charged provides:
The indictment charges the false entries were made to aid or conceal the commission of another crime, although it never specifies what the other crime is. The only thing I can tease out is to aid and conceal Michael Cohen’s admitted crime of spending money to influence the election, i.e., illegal campaign contributions.
The problem is, under Buckley v. Valeo, Trump is permitted to spend as much of his own money as he wants on his campaign. He can take $ 1 billion of his own money and buy advertising, or pay off every hooker in the country.
And as I read the facts, the whole thing was set up this way ahead of time by Cohen, who expected to be reimbursed for the payments.
So, if all this is true, there was no underlying crime to aid or conceal. Trump spent his own money to help his campaign.
(Not to mention, it appears that the underlying crime here is federal. Not clear to me if the NY statute extends to falsify records to conceal a federal crime. I suppose the plain meaning is any crime. How about another state? Another country?)
These are my tentative thoughts.
“…it never specifies what the other crime is.”
And how absurd is that?
Keep flailing. You will need the practice to get ready for Trump’s next indictment.
And the one after that.
And the one after that.
Let’s just enjoy these moments, clingers.
Ingredients: Condescension, 50%. Insecurity, 50%. Legal Substance: 0%.
You’ll be whimpering and sputtering similarly about the Georgia indictment, the D.C. indictment, and the other D.C. indictment, too.
I’ll be smiling. You’ll be moping. With the other clingers.
Look at the bright side: Replacement will end your suffering.
This was in its essence a crime against justice. And yet, by federalizing it, it becomes nothing more than an ordinary petty commercial crime.
We’ve been accustomed to think of making something a federal crime as making it more serious.
This made it less serious.
Sometimes commerce isn’t really the most important aspect of life. Federalizing things can distort them, emphasizing aspects which are not really the essential aspecrs in order to fit it into the Federal Procrustean bed.