I've been looking into his case a bit more and if I understand correctly, he was first put on probation but his license was not suspended because it was his first offense and the client wasn't harmed - but he had to meet certain requirements. He did not meet those requirements (among other things submitting a quarterly report and completing both the State Bar Ethics School as well as the State Bar Client Trust Accounting School and passing both tests; an additional (uncommon) requirement is that he also needs to complete the e-learning course entitled "California Rules of Professional Conduct and State Bar Act Overview).
The pattern of not responding to requests and making promises that he doesn't deliver on has been set from the very start (as in: starting when the first signs of misconduct were identified in September 2022 - the problematic financial transfers took place between January and July of that same year). This was seen as a aggravation as it shows failure to Cooperate with the State Bar.
So, while the initial offense was problematic, it seems the way he is dealing with it (non-compliance and non-communication), is creating the mess he is in. Had he complied with the State Bar, his year of probation would have been over by now and he would have been allowed to practice during that time period.
In addition, there were additional commingling cases in 2023! So, he even continued the behavior he was disciplined for... which in technical terms means, he continued to violate Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1.15(c). This (in combination with again complete silence on his end) seems to have been what caused him to be temporarily suspended per 11 November 2023. Only in February of this year, he seemed to have been in touch to avoid being completely disbarred without trial (the basis would have been his non-response and therefore acceptance of all the presented evidence).
His reason for the lack of communication (which as I noticed before, was a pattern started in 2022, not in 2023, and which created a third case only last month) was that he had an accident in August of last year... He refers to a 'family function' on August 24 in Berleburg (so, at his fiancée's aunt's/cousin's place). The next day he had an accident requiring hospitalization for 4 weeks. He claims that in the following months he had very limited access to his email 'as not to hinder my recuperation'.
He returned to LA only in December (so, almost 4 months later!) and says that only than (after 19 December, his first day in office) he became 'fully aware' of the 'default' (read: suspension). He states that "As of January 2024, my mental capacity in dealing with the termination of clients, loss of income, and all the effects of no longer being able to practice law as a way of living left me completely incapacitated. I was unable to grapple with the facts of my present situation." Only on February 12 he had a conversation with the Supervising Attorney and filed the motion to set aside the default a week later.
The state bar specifically states that the strongly prefer to resolve issues on matters (instead of technicalities like non-response I presume), -therefore- they do not oppose the lifting of the default/suspension but they do mention that Matthew did not provide a reasonable explanation for his delay in contacting the state bar between Dec 19 and Feb 12 - and only did reach out after the state bar had made several attempts again to reach him because of the Feb 11 deadline (if he did not respond by that day, the process for disbarment would be set into motion).
So, in the first week of June the trial will take place in which the issues will be discussed based on merit.
N.B. I was trying to find out what the 'family function' might have been. The christening of Gustav Albrecht took place on the 26th, not on the 24th. Princess Theodora was present as godmother, Matthew wasn't pictured. If he was seriously injured the day before, that must have put a damper on the day of the baptism.
You can paste the url and have the full articles translated.
