The set-up?
Lasater: accuses husband, Guttmann, of forging her signature "while taking out a loan from the firm's 401(k) plan in 1993," says an article on Law.com. Once Maryland state Judge Durke Thompson agreed with her allegations, the Judge issued a subpoena to Beveridge.
Guttmann: took out three loans over a three-year period from his 401(k) plan, beginning in 1992; however, "taking those loans required spousal approval. And because of what the firm acknowledges is 'sloppy bookkeeping,' there is now a dispute over whether that approval was ever obtained."
Lasater also claims that she didn't know what Guttmann did with the money.
Guttmann's story differs. "According to an August 2007 deposition, Guttmann says he wrote his wife's signature on the promissory note dated April 1994, but contends it was with her blessing."
However, according to records, while the effective date of the loan was in December 1993, the promissory note wasn't signed until February 1994, says the article. "And Guttmann did not sign the loan document for both himself and Lasater until April 1994."
"It's certainly not Ms. Lasater's signature, and it's a little fuzzy whether she consented or whether he just forged it," said Judge Thompson. "What does that mean? That means...[Guttmann] is committing acts of moral turpitude which could affect his license to practice."
But let's not forget about the affair. Guttmann, who filed for divorce in November 2005, admitted to having an affair six months before with Dean "Holly" Cannon, a partner at the firm. She has paid more than $300,000 of Guttmann's legal fees.
Lasater believes Guttmann is "borrowing money from Cannon and claiming it as a loan in order to 'reduce both his obligation to support his family and to negate his equitable obligation to reimburse [her] legal fees.'"
And ethics is a concern—whether or not Guttmann will face "an ethics investigation by the D.C. Office of Bar Counsel" is still in question.
"If he signed her name without her permission then it would be, for ethics purposes, a dishonest act," said Hogan & Hartson's ethics partner John Keeney Jr. "It would fall under the category of dishonesty and could result in a censure or a suspension. We'd need to know the facts and the motivation."
