State v. Gulbankian

Gulbank Gulbankian and his sister, Vartak Gulbankian (defendants), were attorneys practicing law in Racine, Wisconsin. The Gulbankians drafted many wills as one of the legal services they offered. Many wills prepared by the Gulbankians included provisions requiring the executor of the will to retain the Gulbankians to probate the estate. In addition, several wills prepared by the Gulbankians appointed another sister, Akabe Gulbankian, as executrix or coexecutrix. There was only one will drafted by the Gulbankians in more than a decade that did not name a Gulbankian in some fiduciary capacity. The State of Wisconsin (plaintiff) filed a complaint alleging that the Gulbankians violated Disciplinary Rule 2-103, which prohibited a lawyer from recommending an attorney to a nonlawyer who had not sought advice regarding employing a lawyer. The state argued that the prevalence of provisions in wills written by the Gulbankians mandating the employment of the Gulbankians to probate estates necessarily implied that the Gulbankians were impermissibly soliciting future employment from clients. The Gulbankians claimed that the clients asked the Gulbankians to take on these responsibilities. Many of the Gulbankians’ clients were Armenian immigrants with a limited understanding of English. Because of the shared linguistic and ethnic background, many clients relied on the Gulbankians for advice and counsel well beyond the normal bounds of the attorney-client relationship. The Gulbankians also produced the testimony of clients stating that the wills reflected the clients’ wishes. It was further noted that other attorneys in Racine County frequently included similar clauses when drafting wills. The matter was brought before a referee, who determined that the Gulbankians did not violate the disciplinary rules. However, the referee strongly discouraged including attorney-employment clauses in wills because of the possibility of the inference of solicitation of employment or a conflict of interest.