Plum attorney to face theft charges
A Plum attorney is accused of taking about $85,000 from a client instead of depositing the money into the right account about four years ago.
On Tuesday, Robert L. Williams, 47, of 140 Cherrywood Drive surrendered to Allegheny County detectives to face multiple charges of theft by deception and theft by failing to deposit a client's money as required.
He is accused of using the money for landscaping and flooring in his upscale Plum house.
Williams was arraigned Tuesday and released on his recognizance pending a preliminary hearing early next month in Pittsburgh.
According a detective's affidavit, Williams helped Alisha L. Branson to obtain a $197,000 mortgage to settle Branson's bankruptcy and improve a house that Branson would then rent out at a residence in Pittsburgh's East End.
Prosecutors allege that Williams took about $85,300 from the money after the bankruptcy was settled.
Attempts to reach Williams and Branson or their attorneys were unsuccessful.
Williams allegedly opened a joint bank account with Branson to receive the mortgage money.
However, he is accused of later opening a construction account, which he solely controlled, and taking money from it for his own purposes.
County district attorney detectives accuse Williams of diverting about $72,500 for landscaping; about $9,400 for new floors; about $3,200 for fencing; and almost $500 for a furnace humidifier.
According to a night court staffer, Williams' preliminary hearing is tentatively scheduled for Jan. 5 in Pittsburgh Municipal Court.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.