Michael Hild, who was found guilty of fraud in a bond pricing scheme, is seeking acquittal or a new trial at a hearing set for March 8. (BizSense file)
Two recent court rulings in Kentucky and New York may have given Richmond businessman Michael Hild more ammunition as he fights to clear his name.
Benjamin Dusing, the attorney who previously represented Hild in the criminal trial that found him guilty of a multimillion-dollar fraud and left him facing a potential federal prison sentence, was suspended indefinitely from practicing law in his home state of Kentucky last week.
The suspension was ordered Feb. 24 by the Supreme Court of Kentucky and was prompted in part by a bar complaint Hild made against Dusing after the conclusion of the criminal trial last year.
Hild and his new attorney, Brian Jacobs of New York law firm Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello, have since seized on the suspension order, arguing that it is further proof of their claim that Dusing provided ineffective counsel to Hild and that Hild deserves an acquittal or new trial.
“By further undermining Mr. Dusing’s credibility, the suspension opinion all but completely erodes this court’s ability to rely on Mr. Dusing’s affidavit…” Jacobs wrote in a letter last week to the judge overseeing Hild’s case, referring to Dusing’s previous lengthy response to Hild’s allegations.
Hild, the founder and former CEO of Live Well Financial, was found guilty by a jury last April on all counts for his role in a bond pricing scheme that toppled his once-fast-growing Chesterfield-based mortgage company.
Benjamin Dusing, the attorney who previously represented Michael Hild in the criminal trial that found him guilty of fraud.
Hild and Dusing are childhood friends who grew up together in Kentucky. Hild initially had retained a team from powerhouse law firm Murphy & McGonigle for representation in the criminal case. He eventually made the switch to Dusing, who has his own firm in Fort Wright, Kentucky and is a former federal prosecutor.
Hild had pleaded not guilty and has remained free for nearly nine months since the verdict after filing a post-conviction motion for acquittal, or at the very least a new trial, arguing that Dusing and his previous legal team were wrongfully ineffective during the trial due in part to allegedly undisclosed conflicts of interest.
He claims Dusing kept secret from Hild the fact that he was fighting multiple custody cases against two mothers of Dusing’s children back in Kentucky leading up to and during Hild’s trial, and that the cases were a major distraction for Dusing.
“Mr. Dusing’s conduct shows that he was consumed with his personal litigation, willing to risk losing his law license in furtherance of that action, and willing to cut short Mr. Hild’s defense case in violation of obligations to his client,” Hild’s camp argued in the letter to the judge last week.
The run-up to Dusing’s suspension was also enflamed by a bizarre, profanity-laced video Dusing posted to social media late last year in which he threatened two Kentucky attorneys involved in his custody disputes.
The suspension order, citing statements from the family court judge in Dusing’s case, shows the effect the video had on the court and on his standing with the bar.
“The video was quite disturbing,” the judge stated. “It was inappropriate and improper for anyone, let alone a member of the Kentucky Bar, to post such a video about a court proceeding in which he is involved.
“It clearly was meant to intimidate this court and this court’s staff and the attorneys involved in the cases with Dusing,” the order stated. “This court must observe that if any litigant can behave in this manner without consequences, our justice system surely is in grave peril. If this behavior can stand with no consequence, then we might as well dismiss all of the ethics rules lawyers are to follow.”
Dusing, according to last week’s ruling, has defended his actions in the video. He argues they were not threats, but rather “his aspirational goal to clean up the ‘preferential justice’ and corruption in the Kenton Family Court and his vow to use all legal means at his disposal to do so.”
Undeterred, the state supreme court ruled that Dusing’s conduct “poses a substantial threat of harm to his clients or to the public,” and that he’s suspended indefinitely from practicing law in the state.
He’s ordered to submit to a psychological evaluation within 90 days to determine his mental fitness to continue the practice of law.
Questions of his mental fitness were prompted both by the content of the video and Hild’s bar complaint based on Dusing’s performance at Hild’s trail.
Hild’s bar complaint, according to court records, described his former counsel as “unprepared, disheveled, seemed to have trouble collecting his thoughts, and failed to find the right words to piece together full sentences when questioning witnesses.”
Hild also claims substance abuse issues may have been a factor.
“Dusing’s lack of preparation, poor performance at my trial, visible consumption of prescription drugs with runs to the pharmacy by his staff, are cause for grave concern now that I have understood those prescription bottles to have contained amphetamines.”
Dusing, according to the court record, denies addiction to alcohol or drugs. He claims to be sober for 19 years and states he has been diagnosed with ADHD for which he takes Adderall.
An email sent to Dusing seeking comment was not returned last week.
Federal prosecutors, who have said Hild’s attempts to overturn the jury conviction should be denied, have yet to file a counter argument in light of the Dusing suspension. Hild and Jacobs seized on that lack of response, as well.
“Despite the government’s wholesale dependence on Mr. Dusing’s credibility, the government has not responded to the mounting evidence undermining Mr. Dusing’s credibility. The government’s silence is telling. Mr. Dusing has shown time and again that he is not credible.”
Jacobs declined to comment further, stating the latest filing speaks for itself.
In addition to the Dusing drama, Hild and his attorney are latching onto another court ruling for potential leverage in their bid for an acquittal or new trial.
In late January, a federal appeals court in New York overturned the criminal convictions of two former Deutsche Bank traders who were initially found guilty of manipulating Libor-based interest rates.
Jacobs, in a filing earlier this month to Hild’s judge, argues there are multiple parallels between that case and Hild’s that warrant a closer looker.
Namely, Jacobs argues that the appeals court opinion on the handling of testimony and evidence related to interest rates is similar to the way prosecutors presented evidence related to bond prices in Hild’s case. Both cases dealt with allegations of submitting false or misleading figures to a third party.
The government claimed Hild helped mastermind a scheme to defraud Live Well’s lenders by falsely inflating the value of a portfolio of reverse mortgage bonds, in order to induce lenders into loaning more money to Live Well than they otherwise would have.
Hild’s defense was built largely on arguing that the prices presented were based on the best estimate of their market value, despite them being difficult to value.
Hild will have his chance to further argue his case for either an acquittal or new trial at a hearing set for March 8 in federal court in Manhattan.
He faces a combined maximum of 115 years in prison, though his sentence will surely be lower. He also faces a maximum fine of $5 million.
Michael Hild, who was found guilty of fraud in a bond pricing scheme, is seeking acquittal or a new trial at a hearing set for March 8. (BizSense file)
Two recent court rulings in Kentucky and New York may have given Richmond businessman Michael Hild more ammunition as he fights to clear his name.
Benjamin Dusing, the attorney who previously represented Hild in the criminal trial that found him guilty of a multimillion-dollar fraud and left him facing a potential federal prison sentence, was suspended indefinitely from practicing law in his home state of Kentucky last week.
The suspension was ordered Feb. 24 by the Supreme Court of Kentucky and was prompted in part by a bar complaint Hild made against Dusing after the conclusion of the criminal trial last year.
Hild and his new attorney, Brian Jacobs of New York law firm Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello, have since seized on the suspension order, arguing that it is further proof of their claim that Dusing provided ineffective counsel to Hild and that Hild deserves an acquittal or new trial.
“By further undermining Mr. Dusing’s credibility, the suspension opinion all but completely erodes this court’s ability to rely on Mr. Dusing’s affidavit…” Jacobs wrote in a letter last week to the judge overseeing Hild’s case, referring to Dusing’s previous lengthy response to Hild’s allegations.
Hild, the founder and former CEO of Live Well Financial, was found guilty by a jury last April on all counts for his role in a bond pricing scheme that toppled his once-fast-growing Chesterfield-based mortgage company.
Benjamin Dusing, the attorney who previously represented Michael Hild in the criminal trial that found him guilty of fraud.
Hild and Dusing are childhood friends who grew up together in Kentucky. Hild initially had retained a team from powerhouse law firm Murphy & McGonigle for representation in the criminal case. He eventually made the switch to Dusing, who has his own firm in Fort Wright, Kentucky and is a former federal prosecutor.
Hild had pleaded not guilty and has remained free for nearly nine months since the verdict after filing a post-conviction motion for acquittal, or at the very least a new trial, arguing that Dusing and his previous legal team were wrongfully ineffective during the trial due in part to allegedly undisclosed conflicts of interest.
He claims Dusing kept secret from Hild the fact that he was fighting multiple custody cases against two mothers of Dusing’s children back in Kentucky leading up to and during Hild’s trial, and that the cases were a major distraction for Dusing.
“Mr. Dusing’s conduct shows that he was consumed with his personal litigation, willing to risk losing his law license in furtherance of that action, and willing to cut short Mr. Hild’s defense case in violation of obligations to his client,” Hild’s camp argued in the letter to the judge last week.
The run-up to Dusing’s suspension was also enflamed by a bizarre, profanity-laced video Dusing posted to social media late last year in which he threatened two Kentucky attorneys involved in his custody disputes.
The suspension order, citing statements from the family court judge in Dusing’s case, shows the effect the video had on the court and on his standing with the bar.
“The video was quite disturbing,” the judge stated. “It was inappropriate and improper for anyone, let alone a member of the Kentucky Bar, to post such a video about a court proceeding in which he is involved.
“It clearly was meant to intimidate this court and this court’s staff and the attorneys involved in the cases with Dusing,” the order stated. “This court must observe that if any litigant can behave in this manner without consequences, our justice system surely is in grave peril. If this behavior can stand with no consequence, then we might as well dismiss all of the ethics rules lawyers are to follow.”
Dusing, according to last week’s ruling, has defended his actions in the video. He argues they were not threats, but rather “his aspirational goal to clean up the ‘preferential justice’ and corruption in the Kenton Family Court and his vow to use all legal means at his disposal to do so.”
Undeterred, the state supreme court ruled that Dusing’s conduct “poses a substantial threat of harm to his clients or to the public,” and that he’s suspended indefinitely from practicing law in the state.
He’s ordered to submit to a psychological evaluation within 90 days to determine his mental fitness to continue the practice of law.
Questions of his mental fitness were prompted both by the content of the video and Hild’s bar complaint based on Dusing’s performance at Hild’s trail.
Hild’s bar complaint, according to court records, described his former counsel as “unprepared, disheveled, seemed to have trouble collecting his thoughts, and failed to find the right words to piece together full sentences when questioning witnesses.”
Hild also claims substance abuse issues may have been a factor.
“Dusing’s lack of preparation, poor performance at my trial, visible consumption of prescription drugs with runs to the pharmacy by his staff, are cause for grave concern now that I have understood those prescription bottles to have contained amphetamines.”
Dusing, according to the court record, denies addiction to alcohol or drugs. He claims to be sober for 19 years and states he has been diagnosed with ADHD for which he takes Adderall.
An email sent to Dusing seeking comment was not returned last week.
Federal prosecutors, who have said Hild’s attempts to overturn the jury conviction should be denied, have yet to file a counter argument in light of the Dusing suspension. Hild and Jacobs seized on that lack of response, as well.
“Despite the government’s wholesale dependence on Mr. Dusing’s credibility, the government has not responded to the mounting evidence undermining Mr. Dusing’s credibility. The government’s silence is telling. Mr. Dusing has shown time and again that he is not credible.”
Jacobs declined to comment further, stating the latest filing speaks for itself.
In addition to the Dusing drama, Hild and his attorney are latching onto another court ruling for potential leverage in their bid for an acquittal or new trial.
In late January, a federal appeals court in New York overturned the criminal convictions of two former Deutsche Bank traders who were initially found guilty of manipulating Libor-based interest rates.
Jacobs, in a filing earlier this month to Hild’s judge, argues there are multiple parallels between that case and Hild’s that warrant a closer looker.
Namely, Jacobs argues that the appeals court opinion on the handling of testimony and evidence related to interest rates is similar to the way prosecutors presented evidence related to bond prices in Hild’s case. Both cases dealt with allegations of submitting false or misleading figures to a third party.
The government claimed Hild helped mastermind a scheme to defraud Live Well’s lenders by falsely inflating the value of a portfolio of reverse mortgage bonds, in order to induce lenders into loaning more money to Live Well than they otherwise would have.
Hild’s defense was built largely on arguing that the prices presented were based on the best estimate of their market value, despite them being difficult to value.
Hild will have his chance to further argue his case for either an acquittal or new trial at a hearing set for March 8 in federal court in Manhattan.
He faces a combined maximum of 115 years in prison, though his sentence will surely be lower. He also faces a maximum fine of $5 million.
A rich fraudster picking an unstable conflicted lawyer is unfortunate but also fitting in a ‘what goes around comes around’ karma sense. Perhaps this deserves another trial which Hild will hopefully lose again. But merely awarded an acquittal due to his poor choice of lawyer? I don’t understand how the word acquittal can even be associated loosely with this situation. It is not like the state assigned him this attorney…
Indeed. As I recall, he fired his original lawyer and hired his buddy, thinking he could somehow get him out of this jam. Awesome choice.
So agree; to be fair I say give him a retrial so that a 2nd jury can find him guilty.
Great, give him a new trial. It doesn’t change what he did. And so everybody is clear, two of Hild’s employees have already testified that Hild knew exactly what was going on regarding the fraud. Those two folks are going to prison. It is unthinkable that Hild won’t be joining them soon.
Wow – just saw the Dusing video for the first time. At no time did I ever think, “this is the guy I will trust to keep me out of prison.”
He got to choose his lawyer, and if the lawyer isn’t a good lawyer, that’s how the free market works.
He should be locked up while all this is going on, especially if one half of the rumours I hear about wat he has been up to while awaiting sentencing are true.
“caveat emptor” is not what the constitution guarantees or requires.
Classic buyer’s remorse. Last I saw, there isn’t a lemon law that covers getting paying a buddy who happens to be a terrible lawyer to represent you.
right? How many poor people with a public defender end up in prison because the PD was overworked?