- Quickdraw McLaw
- 47 Comments
- 164 Views
- Robert Graham will spend the next 16 to 40 years in prison. [News3LV]
- #metoo is hitting a little closer to home now: the 9th Circuit’s Judge Alex Kozinski is accused of sexual misconduct. [Washington Post]
Presidents Day Weekend 2025
This is the dangerous idea that threatens America. When we…
Not Like Us
At this point I think he's appeared more on TV…
Dry Streak Ends
I would break into Tiffany's at midnight. Do I go…
Job Tips: Using AI
I am the person who posted the AI summary yesterday.…
Job Tips: Using AI
https://newrepublic.com/post/191313/donald-trump-ally-supreme-court-overturn-press-protection Steve Wynn is a massive piece of shit.
You can tell Koz, he is not important enough for me to write out his name is an ass. He mistreated Ayon, which is unacceptable, and then he interjected his own opinions into his rulings instead of applying the law.
Kozinski is way too smug and self-important to admit he did anything wrong. But the judicial misconduct committee can't just look the other way on something like this if any of these women file a complaint. This could get interesting.
Relax. Nothing is going to happen to Kozinski. Not much happened last time in 2008 when he posted sexually explicit stuff on his website.
http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-kozinski12-2008jun12-story.html
Unless Kozinski leaves in his own good time and on his own terms, i.e., retirement a la Richard Cebull of the racist emails, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2303747/Richard-Cebull-Montana-district-judge-retire-racist-joke-email-Obama-mother.html,
I don't think that even God and all his angels can remove an Article III judge from his lifetime perch.
But at least there's some measure of schadenfreude and karmic vindication to be had here. Somewhere, I hope that sound you hear is Luis Ayon chortling.
Professor Rapoport from Boyd posted a blog stating that Judge Kozinski harassed her as well when she was working at the Ninth Circuit.
https://nancyrapoports.blog/2017/12/09/there-are-likely-several-more-stories-to-come/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
I keep thinking about how in Pride and Prejudice if Lizzie had told others about what Mr. Wickham was like, then she could have prevented Lydia's elopement.
Then I am reminded how Jane Austen has a storyline for just about everything.
Anyway…Boyd Law absolutely has sexual harassment stories that need to come to light. Maybe students reading Prof. R's post will feel comfortable coming forward now about certain professors at the school who are frequently the subject of complaints.
Not to be a dick here, but in what event would someone that has a chance to clerk with Kozinski be in a place where they're turning to Prof. Rapoport for clerking advice? Kozinski famously hires only the cream of the crop law students from across the country because he's one of a handful of "feeder" judges that sends clerks to the Supreme Court. His clerks didn't go to Houston, UNLV, Nebraska, or Ohio State (i.e. the schools where Prof. Rapoport has been); they went to Yale and Harvard. I believe Kozinski is a douche and that he sexually harassed women, including probably Prof. R., but I'm having a hard time figuring out how the last part of her letter makes any sense. Like wouldn't the women that are getting Judge Kozinski offers be calling up the professors and career services folks at Yale or Harvard or wherever they went to school? Or maybe this was just idle chit chat with students that were in no position to get the job in any event?
Nancy Rapoport, advising her students that they should not, in any event, accept a job at NASA because space isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
Obviously removing a federal judge based on these type of allegations is much more difficult than the much more direct process of shaming other types, accused of sexually-oriented behavior, into resigning their positions–such as media executives, actors with certain television roles, broadcast journalists and the like. Those type people know they need act quickly or they can be removed against their will by those above them.
But, with a federal judge, it is a lot more complex. Seldom can they be compelled to resign quickly "under pressure." And don't expect much pressure from the current administration as this judge is a Republican appointee.
So, it may take a long drawn-out ethical proceeding to make it happen. And such proceeding is not guaranteed to occur. Things may change, but at this time very few people are willing to come forward, and the judge(unlike many of these accused people) steadfastly insists he did nothing wrong, but merely apologizes if anyone was foolish enough to misconstrue something he did or said. With that attitude, this will need to go all the way. He's had this exalted position for 32 years, and it will take an ethical probe all the way to conclusion if anyone expects him to be removed.
But another problem, which no one mentions, is that this case, unlike the others, does not seem to involve physical contact or using his position of power to demand sexual acts, but instead apparently involves questioning people as to what they think of the pornography showing on his screen.
That of course is intolerable and, depending on the dialogue, may very well establish a sexual harassment pattern. I'm just suggesting that this is a bit more nuanced than the other matters involving prominent people, as well as being considerably less extreme.
There's no excuse for the behavior. Asking staff if they are aroused by pornography is outrageous and unbefitting someone in his position, and renders him unfit for the position if in fact he is guilty of this conduct.
But since he apparently didn't attempt anything physical or proposition anyone, and did not fire, demote or disciplined anyone for not reacting favorably to his inquiries concerning pornography, this case could pose a real challenge. But at the very least it's a hostile, highly inappropriate work environment, and that in and of itself would render him undeserving of continuing to serve if the allegations are in fact true.
Still, people don't seem to understand how this is much more difficult than the cases concerning some stupid entertainers or moronic entertainment journalists, who commit very blatant and outrageous sexual violations and who are then rapidly fired to avoid public relations and ratings nightmares. This is a long-serving, highly regarded(in many circles) federal judge.
Well,11:02, it's true that the conduct may not be as blatant as that of the entertainers, but because of the exalted position he holds, it need not be as blatant as far less should be tolerated.
Judges and the judicial system are the gate-keepers of protecting people from this conduct. Therefore, there must be even far less tolerance for this behavior than if it is committed by some narcissistic actors or rock musicians, or whatever.
But yes, since he steadfastly denies it, and will apparently insist it all be proved, that is a problem. And, yes, it is factually more murky. No one has yet alleged they were demoted, fired or disciplined or that he physically made a move on them(at least I don't think that has been alleged).
But if there is the basis for an ethical proceeding(and I have no idea whether that will occur), he, as a federal judge, is held to a much higher standard as he, and his colleagues are in fact the gate keepers or protectors.
In other words, if all Matt Lauer, Kevin Spacey or Al Franken(and others) had done was ask a group of assembled people at a cocktail party about how aroused they are about certain pornography, they would still be in their positions and experiencing no serious professional problems.
But a sitting federal judge should not be having discussions where he insists that groups of attorneys weigh in as what type of pornography arouses them the most. Based on his position, if that type of behavior actually occurred, and is established, that in and of itself may be quite problematic.
I basically agree on those assessments about the judge. Because of his position, he is held to a much higher standard than some idiot entertainer or smarmy entertainment reporter. So, a lower form of conduct may be sufficient to create professional problems.
As to Rob Graham, there are continued reports of victims still seeking justice.
Justice may be had as to the criminal sentence, if he serves most of it(which, he probably won't).
But victims are primarily concerned about justice in terms of being made whole in terms of being reimbursed what was stolen from them. They will never even be made 20% whole, even if we combine the assets seized from Graham, and add to it monies from the State Bar Victims' Fund and all other sources.
So, the legal system, with a substantial assist form the media, should not be encouraging continued false hope by feeding into a bogus narrative about how victims may finally get justice.
Since they primarily define justice as not Graham's criminal sentence, but instead by being reimbursed for the massive thievery in order to relieve their devastation, they need to be treated with respect and compassion and told the truth.
And the truth is that whatever percentage the reimbursement currently stands at, that will exponentially increase very little over time.
During the news cycle when this case is still prominent, that is when most of the reimbursement occurs. Wherever it now stands, it will not profoundly increase. Now that he's been sentenced, and media coverage will dry up, and people deal with new matters of import, don't expect much more reimbursement to occur.
For example since this story broke, in addition to a lot of more news worthy items which have occurred, we already had a subsequent crisis(the Oct. 1 shootings) which will be the almost complete focus of any and all philanthropic efforts aimed at alleviating media-covered tragedies to people on a local level.
Anyone who is still in a position to contribute, will contribute to something like the Oct. 1 shootings, where many people were killed or left permanently disabled. People, in general, are no longer thinking in terms of helping people ripped off by some estate attorney.
So, someone needs to stop leading Graham clients into thinking justice can still be done. And I firmly believe they are still being provided false hope from some sources.
Who are those sources? The TV Stations who want to continue to milk the teats on this sow as long as possible? This story is over. We have extracted 16 years of punishment. The sentences are consecutive so Graham will be away long enough that he stands a fair chance of dying in the system. The victims will receive what has already been collected; the restitution and forfeiture is done. There will be a short-term push to convince the State Bar that it should take care of the victims. SBN will act compassionate but no lawyer in their right might would vote that SBN has a duty to make the victims whole. There was an NSC Opinion a few weeks back that talked about the social engineering which the State Bar has been trying to do in fining lawyers in an effort to stock up the Client Security Fund without actually having a basis in the rules for such efforts.
Any chance the LDS church is going to refund all that tithing money he paid over the years and during the time he was stealing?
No. I seriously doubt even one-forth of it would be returned. But many people insist they should largely reimburse such losses by their members. But I don't think the church will pay out much(relatively speaking).
And that's not a criticism. They should do as much, in terms of reimbursement, as they feel reasonably comfortable with, but, to my mind, they have no obligation(legal, moral, ethical or otherwise)covering for mass losses perpetrated against church members by a rapacious felon.
I'm not a member of the LDS Church and know nothing of its tenants or policies, but it's not reasonable to expect much from them in this instance.
They spend great effort raising revenue, and all those dollars are then ear-marked for very specific projects of the church–continued extreme expenses for standard operations, money needed for recruitment, funding for missionaries, funding for many altruistic and community related projects, etc.
The fact it is their money, and not mine or someone else's.
So, it's too easy for me and others to express views as to what other people or institutions should do with their money, and then support our position by climbing on some moral soap box.
They church spends it for the above enumerated matters, and much more. They would be financially harmed, to a significant degree, in their operations if they had to reimburse all these losses.
Also, there are other complications I don't know about. I was informed that an inordinate amount of Graham's victims were not just LDS, but were from Graham's actual ward. If true, does this mean that the ward itself would need to reimburse it all, or does the stake the ward belongs to get involved, or would it all be handled at a much higher level?
If it's all handled at a much higher level from a much larger communal pool under church auspices, perhaps more could be done for the victims than I think. But if it's possible, and the higher authorities reimburse victim members, would an individual ward, or even a stake, then be expected to augment their future collection efforts to compensate the church at large for reimbursing all this? If so, that could make things very difficult for the ward and/or stake, or local church leadership in general.
Any LDS folks out there who can explain how this all works?
The amount returned by the church will be limited to what Graham actually donated. They're not going to take it on the chin and give victims money they didn't receive in the first place..
The Church routinely returns tithing money that was obtained via fraud, etc. I believe they have said they will do so in this case as well. In fact, I know an attorney at Kirton & McConkie in Salt Lake that helps the church in cases like these to return the money. While what Rob Graham did is despicable and hurt a lot of people, the money he apparently donated to the Church is not even a drop in the total tithing bucket. The Church certainly doesn't need the money and doesn't have any real incentive to keep it.
Some creative attorney/law firm should trace as much of the stolen money as possible and seek disgorgement/return back to the victims. Now that we know the funds were obtained by criminal acts, allowing the recipient to retain the stolen funds would constitute an unjust enrichment. Just my 2 cents.
So…. you want to go after his landlord? His ad guy? His former employees? The Social Security office?
Unjust enrichment from the Landlord? The Landlord gave exact the value that was contracted; no enrichment there. The TV Stations? Gave exactly the value that Graham contracted for. The only possible locations for disgorgement are the charities. However the rules of charity disgorgement (especially in light of the tax deductions which Graham certainly took) are quite murky. You are right. If Graham's wife or kids or bank in the Cook Islands got money, that should be disgorged. But you cannot go to Joel Roubouchon and say disgorgement the monies paid for that Opus One that Graham kept drinking.
To:11:42: Is anyone, in a position of authority or public credibility, still telling these people that there is a good chance they may be made whole?
I doubt it. I suspect they were there in court to give victim impact statements and hold little hope of damage he did to them being undone in whole or significant part.
Navarro hints at Mistrial as Myrhe's Brady abuses continue to mount. Maybe he should just resign. If his abuses of Defendants' rights cannot get him to give it up, maybe the embarrassment to himself should. https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/bundy-blm/las-vegas-judge-hints-at-mistrial-in-bunkerville-standoff-case/
While it is understandable why on Friday the Rob Graham sentencing got attention, the RJ, Sun and Indy paid zero attention about the LACSN Awards Banquet which shined a spotlight on the tens of thousands of hours of good work attorneys are doing in this community.
1:08 is absolutely right.
Attorneys, obviously, have a very poor public image. But that image could be significantly improved, on a gradual basis year-by-year, if
there is coverage of this banquet and other similar events, and focus on all these attorneys who could be taking home an extra $10,000. or $20,000. per year for their own use if they weren't so graciously contributing their sweat, blood and tears.
But there is always little or no broad-based media attention to such matters or events, and there probably never will be. That is the nature of human interest and its focus on the negative and salacious, and the media catering to those baser instincts of our being. The Rob Grahams will always receive a thousand times more media attention than a pro bono banquet. Very sad but very true.
If a prominent politician arranges a massive canned food drive for the needy during the holidays, no one cares because, from a media perspective, it makes boring copy. But if once the holidays pass, that same politician is caught in a seedy motel room with a transgender prostitute, that is splashed all over the front page, and is the lead story on the nightly news broadcasts.
Agree with 1:19 & 1:08. It is a common complaint that "the media" has a particular political bias. For some outlets that cater to a niche demographic, that's true. But the real universal bias is towards sensationalism. Whether the role of lawyers in society or any number of issues, the media ends up presenting a distorting version of reality, all as a means to the ends of clicks and eyeballs. The local nightly news broadcasts are especially egregious, IMO. Those "news" casts are nothing more than a shocking nightly parade of tragedy and depravity, assembled for ratings. Those kinds of stories are easy to put together by simply listening to the police scanner. They are shocking and draw an audience. They require little to no probing or follow up. In short, the stories you see at night on local TV news are there because they are a cheap, easy product to make with an excellent ROI as compared to substantive journalism.
Kirk-Hughes suspended for four years
link?
WTF! You can steal hundreds of thousands of dollars of client money and have it be your SEVENTH Disciplinary Offense and get off with a shortened suspension. 7th offense. 8 aggravating factors and 1 mitigating factor. I thought for sure this was going to be a published opinion.
Read the Decision and learn boys and girls. The aggravating factors (and lack of mitigating factors) made ZERO difference to the Supreme Court in the Kirk-Hughes case. The number of RPC violations made no difference. The Supreme Court purely looked at the nature of her conduct and set the sanction according to what they believed were comparable cases (without any discussion of mitigation between those cases). Geraldine suffered no change in the result of her case by being flippant and refusing to take any responsibility. The message is clear: fight the State Bar and do not cooperate because it will not matter to your ultimate discipline. I hate to admit it but the Supreme Court has become a wheel of fortune, arbitrarily and randomly selecting sanctions without any consistency. They are consistently clueless in being inconsistent.
I can't believe that opinion. If there was a case that justified disbarment, this one certainly did. SEVEN prior offenses, 8 aggravating factors, theft of large amounts of money (moral turpitude and personal gain), etc yet ticket not punched??!!
Any wonder why the public distrusts attorneys in particular and the system in general?
And yet Harvey Whittemore makes a campaign donation, harms no one, has no victims, has his first Disciplinary Offense and gets the SAME SUSPENSION as Kirk-Hughes. Any wonder why attorneys distrust the State Bar and Nevada Supreme Court in particular and the system in general.
Wait folks, it's even worse….
The same day that the S. Ct. resolved the Kirk-Hughes matter with the 4 year suspension (with her history as already discussed), they also resolved the discipline matter of Brian Keith, NBN 4110 (Case Number 73314).
Keith was accused of a violation of RPC 8.4 (Misconduct: commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on a lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer). The opinion set forth that in 2008 he was suspended for 2 years as a result of a prior misdemeanor DUI conviction in Oregon and a separate felony DUI conviction in California. He was subsequently reinstated, and in March 2016 was convicted in Nevada for misdemeanor DUI after driving 70 MPH in a 35MPH zone, admitting to consuming alcohol before driving, smelling strongly of alcohol, failing the FST, and having difficulty standing/walking without support.
The panel found 3 aggravating factors: prior disciplinary offense, pattern of misconduct and illegal conduct. It also found 2 mitigating factors: absence of dishonest or selfish motive and imposition of other penalties or sanctions.
Result: 3 year suspension
In the the Kirk-Hughes opinion, the justices seemed to be concerned with proportionality and consistency, yet the same day the issue the Keith decision which, (without trying to minimize his misconduct) seems substantially harsher in result for less egregious misconduct. Granted he committed a criminal offense, (but I think stealing from others also would qualify as a criminal offense), he has prior offenses for same or similar conduct (I believe Kirk-Hughes also had that one as well).
Seems something is amiss when comparing these 2 cases..
That is ABSOLUTELY crazy! 3 years for misdo DUI. Didn't steal any money. Didn't crash. Didn't harm anyone. I will never minimize DUI as being wrong or give you the "There but for the grace of God" speech. But 3 years? Compared to Kirk-Hughes being 4 years on her 7th Disciplinary Offense? THAT IS NUTS.
To: 1:08 and 1:19.How true. But even one printed story in the RJ each year concerning the banquet, or a 30 second spot on one of the three local news affiliates, could do wonders.
Can't the Communications Directors of the RJC and/or Family Court at least accomplish that? If not, and they only exist for the purpose of saying "we cannot comment" when questioned about some judicial controversy or the like, well judicial chambers can do the same thing. They can also say "no comment."
And that is the way it used to be before we had Communications Directors serving the court at a reasonably substantial tax-payer salary.
If all that is said to an inquiry is "no comment on account that it's a pending matter" then what is the point of it all?
In L.A., and New York, and other major outlets the Communications Directors are quite skilled and earn their keep. They don't merely say no comment, but no comment followed by the requisite spin–such as the system certainly recognizes the severity of the general problem, or whatever else can generally be said to positively weigh in on a situation, even when direct commentary on a particular case is not permissible.
Now, in fairness, perhaps the Communications Directors made some attempt, such as sending media outlets an announcement of the pro bono event. But these days there is never any follow up or initiative in most professions. Everyone relies on the technology and feels they have covered the issue if they electronically release the event info. to media outlets.
A few years back a person in such position would be hustling, such as following up by directly emailing(or better yet phoning–remember that device?) sources in the media. Example: "Can't you possibly find a few column inches in Section B where you report on local events?" or "Can't you at least find 45 seconds on the weekend news to focus on the event, if you don't have the time to spare during the Monday through Friday broadcasts?"
That's the way it used to be. But with everyone being a slave to technology to the detriment of the human element, I'm not sure events like this will ever get the coverage.
So, 1:19 is correct that a main problem is that stories like the pro bono banquet would get bumped in favor of something far more salacious if that occurs. But my point is more basic. Based on how things are currently handled, the pro bono banquet would never be a tentative story in the first place, and would never be at risk of getting bumped or cancelled because no one ever got it competently slated for broadcast or printing to begin with.
It is because of former attorneys such as Graham, Titolo and others that our image has attorneys has been continuously ruined. Because of this, the State Bar recently sent out a survey as to implementing a system of random audits for attorney-trust accounts.
Although the notion of random audits seems like a good idea (on the surface at most), it is a horrible idea. Not only does it allow the State Bar to obtain confidential information under the guise of self-regulation, but it allows the State Bar to have access to financials for any law firm (as inevitably an audit would reveal disbursements for attorney fees and advanced costs). This could be misused by the State Bar to go after attorneys as a result of any jealousies that certain elite attorneys may have (e.g., despite David Francis' wrongdoings, he was likely screwed over by the State Bar as a result of its nod to other well established PI attorneys who have pull with the State Bar).
In this regard, and I am not supporting any increase in State Bar fees, we may want to look into establishing a victim's recovery fund to improve our profession's image. Something like the Contractor's Board, where a homeowner can seek some sort of relief should a contractor screw them over. It could be structured where some money held in reserve by the State Bar (if any) could be used to purchase insurance or annuities for any claims made, with a certain cap / limits. I am not sure of the mechanics, but the State Bar should look into other meaningful solutions, rather than looking to audit attorney trust accounts "randomly."
I'm looking for some anonymous legal advice. Well, really I'm just looking for someone to point me in the right direction.
Company intends to enter into an "independent contractor" relationship with some non-employees, who will be in the same field but fully independent of Company's management. Let's assume it's a bona fide independent contractor agreement that will stand up in court if tested. I always assumed that Company would not need to provide workers' comp coverage for the independent contractors. However, NRS 616A does not seem to have any exceptions for this type of situation.
It boggles the mind that Company would have to provide WC coverage, but I'm not seeing a way out. This isn't my field, so I figure I must be missing something obvious.
Can someone point me to the statute or rule that would apply here and let Company avoid providing WC coverage to these independent contractors? Please?
Agree with 3:27 about the potential parade of horrors of authorizing this type of unbridled access.
Also, the post mentions the name of a specific attorney in addition to Graham, and an earlier post mentions an attorney who just received a long suspension.
When the attorney who just got suspended, and the attorney just mentioned in conjunction with Graham's name, both got licensed in the late 80's, I had immediate concerns about them.
I may have very few skills but my colleagues tell me that I am uncannily accurate at forecasting attorneys who are headed for serious professional trouble. So, I at least have that one skill, or instinct.
Many others also have this skill or instinct. For those who do, what tell tale signs do you see? To me, some of the signs are extreme bravado and extreme focus on generating a lot of money very early on in practice, with no real attention to detail or actually performing all the paper work necessary to set the cases up for success. And this problem is compounded because they never spend the money on skilled support staff(such as an associate, or even a skilled paralegal) who can prepare a lot of the needed paperwork for the attorney's signature
When such attorneys are fortunate enough to have a great case fall in their lap, that they are completely incompetent to prepare for in litigation or to conduct a trial if it comes to that, rather than engaging skilled co-counsel and sharing in the eventual riches, they greedily forge forward by themselves and invariably get a defense verdict or a paltry verdict or settlement in comparison to the much greater one they could have had if they engaged skilled co-counsel.
Also, rather than actually preparing the cases these types of attorneys attempt to compensate for their complete lack of preparation in what they think are successful court room skills. Those "skills" consist of drama, and yelling and blaming the other side.
And these behaviors usually go hand-in-hand with financial and trust fund problems. Despite the complaints about current Bar Counsel, if he is aggressively pursuing these types of "attorneys", hats off to him.
What's particularly shocking is that these attorneys, most of which are eventually disbarred or receive a long suspension, are successful, with their bravado, in actually snowing some attorneys. And that would explain the startling spectacle that sometimes these awful attorneys are chosen to present CLE material.
So, these nauseating, shamelessly self-promoting obnoxious and disrespectful loud mouths may, early in their career, fool some of the people some of the time, but it eventually all catches up to them.
A couple or words come immediately to mind in identifying the attorneys likely to find themselves in the professional discipline boat.
#1 – Greed
#2 – Egotistical/self centered
#3 – Lazy/unprepared
3:27 here. Just want to correct my assertion as to Mr. Titolo. I was under the impression that he had been disbarred. I was wrong and apologize for the incorrect assertion. It was not meant in any bad faith.
Honestly Titolo and Graham are quite different cases.
Same thing here as to 3:54. Even though that attorney, and another, were mentioned in blogs, my generic remarks about having concerns about them when they became licensed was limited to that impression at that time–my personal view.
But the bulk of my post was just generic in content as to the types of attorneys who are problematic in my view. It's not really about specific people.
But it is true to listen to your gut when you believe someone is problematic as an attorney.
The time has come from the Nevada Supreme Court to scrap the entire de novo review of Discipline cases because they are ruling (absent oral argument) on a cold record and have shown that they are not even reading the cold record to determine the nature of their Discipline rulings. If you read the GKH Briefs, the facts are quite a bit more frightening than the Court put in their Decision. If they aren't going to even read the record, then review the Panel Decisions for abuse of discretion or have the Court conduct the disciplinary hearings so that they have some idea of what they are talking about.
They're not supposed to be reviewing the entire case de novo; they're supposed to be reviewing the punishment de novo. The facts, as determined by the discipline committee, should be reviewed for substantial evidence.
You are correct EXCEPT (if you read the recent disciplinary decisions) the weight that they give to the facts is entirely discretionary and reviewed de novo. So the facts do not matter. And the Kirk-Hughes decision does to show that the NSC is giving no more than lip service to the fact that discipline is NOT supposed to be punishment but is supposed to be based exclusively on protection of the public and image of the Bar. The public needs protected from the Kirk-Hughes's. The public does not need protection from attorneys with no victims who sign a tax return that contains incorrect figures.
Was Rob Graham a bishop or a stake president? Mormons should not just do business with Mormons. Your religion does not indicate whether or not
you are moral.
I hope there aren't many people out there who believe that all people of their same religion are moral. I'm Mormon and I'll be the first to admit that there are a lot of bad apples in our religion. In any large group you're going to have all types. The problem in the Mormon church is that we try to hold ourselves to a high standard so there is a lot of pressure to look successful and present an image of morality. What this leads to is hypocrisy when the image the person presents is in discord with reality.
There are also those in our faith and others who prey on fellow members because they know its easier to take advantage of those who trust you because you're "brothers."
I don't know what Rob Graham's position was, but it's likely that he used his membership to instill trust in those church members who went to him for help. I don't feel bad from him and I hope he spends the next 40 years in jail thinking about the people whose lives he ruined.
Graham further used those funds stolen from his clients when making contributions to the Mormon church. To demonstrate their morality, I would think the church would be looking to refund those sums to the Graham's victims.
They won't. Instead they will "demonstrate their morality" by retaining those funds to better spread the word–more recruitment, more missions, more conversions etc.–since each new member will result in 10% tithing.
The idea is to increase revenue, not decrease it. And returning the money decreases revenue. They will not do so simply because you, me and other outsiders think that is a good way to "demonstrate their morality."