|
ADMONITION
On February 25, 2003, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee for violation of Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.5(b)
(Fees), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
An attorney was retained to represent a client concerning a child custody matter, but did not
file an appearance of counsel until three years later. Hearings were stricken because of the attorney's lack of diligence and failure to appear. The attorney also failed to pursue a
formal hearing as requested by the client. The attorney filed a Petition to Modify the Decree of Divorce seven years after retention. The attorney filed a Notice to Submit for Decision
and a day later, a Motion for Leave of Counsel to Withdraw. The client collected the file from the attorney and learned that the attorney had done no legal work in the matter for four
years. In exchange for legal work, the client performed repairs on the attorney's home. The attorney failed to establish with the client the basis upon which fees would be charged, and/or
how the client's work would be credited towards the bill, and failed to advise the client of tax consequences of their barter arrangement.
ADMONITION
On February 14,
2003, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee for violation of Rules 8.1(b) and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
An attorney was retained to represent a client in a divorce modification matter. The client filed a bar complaint against the attorney. The Office of Professional Conduct
("OPC") requested information from the attorney. The attorney failed to respond to the OPC's requests for information and Notice of Informal Complaint.
ADMONITION
On February 14, 2003, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee for violation of Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.5(a) and (b) (Fees), 3.1 (Meritorious
Claims and Contentions), and 8.4(a) and (d) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
An attorney was retained to represent a client seeking post-conviction
relief and to assist in a civil rights action. The attorney failed to provide competent representation with the thoroughness and skillful preparation necessary for the work undertaken.
The attorney charged the client an excessive fee, failed to communicate the basis for the fee, and failed to obtain a written fee agreement. The attorney brought claims on behalf of the
client that were dismissed as frivolous and procedurally barred.
ADMONITION
On February 14, 2003, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline
Committee for violation of Rules 1.15(a) and (b) (Safekeeping Property), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
While representing the
interests of an investment company, an attorney used funds deposited in the attorney's trust account by a third party for the benefit of a client before the client had given the
consideration due the third party. The attorney failed to provide the requested accounting to the third party.
PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On February 7, 2003, the Honorable Gordon
J. Low, First Judicial District Court, entered an Order of Discipline: Public Reprimand, reprimanding Robert W. Gutke for violation of Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a)
(Communication), 1.15(b) (Safekeeping Property), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Mr. Gutke was also placed
on six months unsupervised probation.
In summary:
In one matter, Mr. Gutke was retained to represent a client in a civil lawsuit and was paid a portion of the legal fees. Mr.
Gutke obtained a trust deed against the client's house to secure future legal fees. The client requested an accounting of charges incurred for the legal services, but Mr. Gutke failed to
provide it. Mr. Gutke also failed to keep the client reasonably informed of the status of the case. In another matter, Mr. Gutke was retained to represent a client in a divorce. He failed
to promptly finalize the client's divorce and failed to keep the client reasonably informed of the status of the case. As to each complaint, Mr. Gutke failed to cooperate with the Office
of Professional Conduct's requests for information. Mr. Gutke also failed to comply with an order of the First Judicial District Court concerning discovery.
PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On February 26, 2003, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee entered an Order of Discipline: Public Reprimand, reprimanding Jerald N. Engstrom for violation of Rules 1.1
(Competence) and 8.4(a), (c), and (d) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
Mr. Engstrom was retained to assist another attorney in criminal appeals for
the Weber County Public Defenders Office. Mr. Engstrom researched and drafted the appellants' briefs, which the other attorney reviewed. The attorneys decided together which issues to
raise in the appeals. Mr. Engstrom failed to provide competent representation to his clients: he lacked the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for
the completion of the appellate briefs. Errors in the appellate briefs included failing to cite the proper standard of review, failing to marshal the evidence, failing to provide legal
authority and meaningful legal analysis, and failing to identify the relief sought. Mr. Engstrom negligently mischaracterized the record evidence in one brief. Mr. Engstrom engaged in
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by repeatedly failing to provide competent representation as a court-appointed attorney for indigent clients after receiving warning
from the court that the briefs previously submitted had been inadequately briefed.
Mitigating factors include: cooperation with the Office of Professional Conduct.
PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On February 26, 2003, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee entered an Order of Discipline: Public Reprimand, reprimanding B. Maurice Richards for
violation of Rules 1.1 (Competence) and 8.4(a), (c), and (d) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
Mr. Richards was retained, with the assistance of
another attorney, to handle appeals for the Weber County Public Defenders Office. The attorneys decided together which issues to raise in the appeals. The other attorney drafted the
briefs, which Mr. Richards reviewed. Mr. Richards failed to provide competent representation to his clients: he lacked the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably
necessary for the completion of the appellate briefs. Errors in the appellate briefs included failing to cite the proper standard of review, failing to marshal the evidence, failing to
provide legal authority and meaningful legal analysis, and failing to identify the relief sought. Mr. Richards negligently mischaracterized the record evidence in one brief. Mr. Richards
engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by repeatedly failing to provide competent representation as a court-appointed attorney for indigent clients.
Mitigating factors include: absence of prior record of discipline and cooperation with the Office of Professional Conduct.
|
