Short answer. Yes, this is a listed ground. Attachment may issue in an action for money or property embezzled, fraudulently misapplied, or converted to his own use by an agent, among others, in the course of his employment, or by any other person in a fiduciary capacity, or for a willful violation of duty.
What the law says
(b) In an action for money or property embezzled or fraudulently misapplied or converted to his own use by a public officer, or an officer of a corporation, or an attorney, factor, broker, agent, or clerk, in the course of his employment as such, or by any other person in a fiduciary capacity, or for a willful violation of duty
Rule 57, Section 1 — Grounds upon which attachment may issue. Read the full provision →
What the law says
as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered
Rule 57, Section 1 — Grounds upon which attachment may issue. Read the full provision →
Who the ground reaches
Paragraph (b) of Section 1 names a list of positions of trust and then refuses to stop at the list. It covers money or property embezzled, fraudulently misapplied, or converted to his own use by a public officer, an officer of a corporation, an attorney, factor, broker, agent, or clerk, in the course of his employment as such. It then extends the same treatment to any other person in a fiduciary capacity, and to a willful violation of duty. The unifying idea is not the job title but the position of trust that gave the person access to what was taken.
Three ways the misuse is described
The paragraph does not require the conduct to be labelled in one particular way. It speaks of property embezzled, fraudulently misapplied, or converted to his own use. Those overlap, and the choice among them will often be a matter of characterising the same facts. What matters more is the second half of the phrase: the conduct occurred in the course of his employment as such, or in a fiduciary capacity. Misconduct by someone who happens to be an agent, but which has nothing to do with the agency, is not what this ground is describing.
Willful violation of duty as a separate limb
The closing words add an independent basis: an action for a willful violation of duty. This is worth noticing because it does not depend on the money having been pocketed. A fiduciary can cause loss by deliberately doing what the position forbids, or deliberately failing to do what it requires, without personally taking anything. The word willful is the limit. Negligence, however costly, is not what the limb describes, and an application resting on carelessness alone is resting on the wrong part of the paragraph.
What the writ does for you
Attachment holds the property as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered. It does not restore what was taken, it does not establish that the misuse occurred, and it does not shorten the case. Its value is that it keeps an asset available while the claim is tried, which matters most in exactly this situation, where the person who controlled your money also controls what happens to his own. The remedy may be applied for at the commencement of the action or at any time before entry of judgment.