|
ADMONITION
On January 24, 2002, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 1.3 (Diligence);
1.4 (Communication) and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The attorney was hired to represent the client in a divorce action. The attorney tried to have the client's husband served, but could not because he was out of state. When the attorney
failed to serve the client's husband in a timely manner, the client's divorce action was dismissed. The attorney assumed that the client did not wish to proceed with the divorce and lost
contact with the client because of address and telephone changes over a period of time. When the client did contact the attorney, the attorney did not return the call or any further
calls. Thereafter, the attorney did respond to the client, and completed the divorce at no additional charge.
ADMONITION
On February 8, 2002, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 1.3 (Diligence);
1.4(a) (Communication); and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The attorney was hired to file a Chapter 11 bankruptcy action. The attorney failed to file the necessary financial reports to support the clients' Chapter 11 bankruptcy, resulting in the
bankruptcy being converted to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The attorney failed to keep his clients reasonably informed about the status of their case.
ADMONITION
On February 6, 2002, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 1.16(d) (Declining
or Terminating Representation) and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The attorney was hired to pursue a medical malpractice claim resulting from an automobile accident. The client provided documentation to the attorney, including a journal that had been
kept since the accident. The attorney withdrew as counsel and failed to return the file to the client. When the client requested the file, the client was informed that it had been lost
when the attorney moved offices. New copies of the documentation were eventually provided to the client, but, the journal and other property belonging to the client were never recovered.
ADMONITION
On January 30, 2002, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 1.4(a)
(Communication); 5.3(b) (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants); and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The attorney was hired to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy action. The client wanted to reaffirm the debt owed on the client's car. The client repeatedly contacted the attorney's office to find
out whether the reaffirmation agreements had been received and was told they had not. The client made numerous attempts to contact the attorney but the attorney failed to return the
client's phone calls. One week after the deadline to file the reaffirmation papers, the client received the papers from the attorney. The papers had been received by the attorney
approximately two months earlier, but were not forwarded in a timely fashion to the client. The client immediately signed and filed the reaffirmation papers but, because the client had
missed the deadline, the car was repossessed.
ADMONITION
On February 6, 2002, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 1.3 (Diligence)
and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The attorney was hired to represent the client in a divorce action. At the pre-trial hearing, the court admonished the client for failing to file a financial declaration and warned that it
would enter a default judgment if the financial declaration was not filed. At the continuation of the pre-trial hearing, the court told the client that a declaration must be filed within
five days. Before the final pre-trial hearing, the client reminded the attorney that a financial declaration must be filed. The attorney did not attend the final pre-trial hearing.
Ultimately, a default judgment was entered against the client for failing to file a financial declaration.
ADMONITION
On January 30, 2002, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 1.15 (Safekeeping
Property) and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The attorney advanced funds from the attorney's trust account to a client without making sure that there were sufficient funds to cover the check. Because there were insufficient funds in
the trust account, this resulted in an overdraft on the attorney's trust account. At the time, the trust account held no other funds of any client or other third party.
Mitigating factors include: cooperation with the Office of Professional Conduct during its investigation of this matter.
Aggravating factors include: the attorney received a previous letter of caution from the Office of Professional Conduct advising the attorney to verify that funds were in the trust account
before issuing checks to clients or third parties against those funds.
DISBARMENT
On February 8, 2002, the Honorable Stephen Henriod, Third Judicial District Court, entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law disbarring Peter Ennenga from the
practice of law effective February 8, 2002. Ennenga was allowed a wind-down period of thirty days.
The disbarment is a result of the Office of Professional Conduct's appeal of the judgment of the District Court suspending Ennenga from the practice of law for six months and placing him
on probation for three years for violations of Rules 1.4 (Communication), 1.15 (Safekeeping Property), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(b) and 8.4(c) (Misconduct)
of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Utah Supreme Court issued an opinion on December 18, 2001, holding that Ennenga should have been disbarred for his misconduct.
DISBARMENT
On January 25, 2002, the Honorable William B. Bohling, Third Judicial District Court, entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order re Disbarment, disbarring
John Alex from the practice of law effective November 26, 2001.
On January 10, 2002, the court held a review hearing regarding the court's order disbarring the Respondent, but staying that disbarment. The purpose of the hearing was to allow Alex to
show good cause why the stay of his disbarment should not be lifted. The court found that Alex presented no evidence of good cause and accordingly the stay was lifted.
Alex previously violated the court's Order of Suspension by failing to meet with and respond to his court-appointed supervising attorney, by failing to timely respond to informal
complaints filed against him with the Office of Professional Conduct, by failing to timely respond to a client's request for binding fee arbitration, and by failing to timely pay his Utah
State Bar annual licensing fee.
|
