|
ADMONITION
On January 16, 2004, 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), 1.5(a) (Fees), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
An
attorney was retained to represent a client in a divorce case. The client paid the attorney a retainer fee. The attorney failed to promptly file the divorce action consistent with the
client's instructions, failed to complete the case, and failed to keep the client informed of the status of the case. The attorney also failed to perform meaningful legal services for the
retainer fee collected, failed to return the unearned portion of the fee, and abandoned representation of the client.
Mitigating factors include: absence of dishonest or selfish
motive, timely good faith effort to make restitution or to rectify the consequences of the misconduct involved, cooperative attitude toward OPC's proceedings, and remorse.
PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On February 7, 2004, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court publicly reprimanded James Gilland for violation of Rules 1.1
(Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.6(a) (Confidentiality of Information), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
Mr. Gilland represented
a client in a personal injury claim. Mr. Gilland did not file a complaint or pursue the client's claim before the statute of limitations expired. Mr. Gilland gave the client's file to
another attorney to review. The attorney was not Mr. Gilland's partner or otherwise associated with Mr. Gilland's law office. Mr. Gilland failed to consult with the client or obtain the
client's consent to reveal information relating to the case before giving the attorney the client's file.
Mitigating factors include: absence of a prior record of discipline and full and free disclosure to the client.
ADMONITION
On February 9, 2004, the Honorable Frank G.
Noel, Third Judicial District Court, admonished an attorney for violation of Rules 4.2(a) and (d)(2) (Communication with Person Represented by Counsel) and 8.4(a) and (d) (Misconduct) of
the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
An attorney represented a client in a case involving custody and visitation issues concerning a minor child. The opposing
party was changing counsel. The opposing party's new counsel at the time had not filed a substitution of counsel. The attorney was aware of the opposing party's change of counsel, but
contacted the opposing party directly without the opposing party's substitute counsel's consent. The court disqualified the attorney from the case based upon the telephone conversation
with the opposing party.
Mitigating factors include: No prior record of discipline, lacked a dishonest of selfish motive, displayed a cooperative attitude toward the proceedings,
responded promptly and candidly to the Office of Professional Conduct's inquiries, inexperienced in the practice of law at the time of the misconduct, which contributed to calling the
opposing party without consent of the opposing party's counsel and continuing the call after the opposing party stated the opposing party was represented, remorseful concerning the
intemperate content of the comments made to the opposing party, and apologized to the opposing party, the opposing counsel, and to the court. The attorney also acknowledged the call was
improper.
ORDER OF SUSPENSION
On February 12, 2004, the Honorable Christine M. Durham, Chief Justice, Utah Supreme Court, entered an Order of Suspension, suspending Ray
Harding, Jr. from the practice of law pending final disposition by the Utah Supreme Court.
PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On February 13, 2004, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline
Committee of the Utah Supreme Court publicly reprimanded Brent E. Johns for violation of Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) (Communication), 3.2 (Expediting Litigation, 5.3(b)
(Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
Mr. Johns was retained to modify a client's
divorce decree. Approximately one month later, Mr. Johns told the client the paperwork was ready to be signed. There were errors on the paperwork and approximately one month later, the
paperwork was ready again for the client's signature. The attorney's office told the client it would be signed by the judge in approximately a week or so. Two months later, the paperwork
was signed by the judge. By this time, the client's child had turned eighteen years of age. The Office of Recovery Services ("ORS") informed the client that the client was
ineligible for child support for the four month period it took to modify the divorce decree. Mr. Johns sent a letter to the ORS informing them of the error. The client was still not
receiving child support six months later. The client was subsequently informed by ORS that the court ordered amount on the modification had been omitted. The ORS informed the client that
it had informed Mr. Johns's office of the error five months earlier. The client attempted to contact Mr. Johns, but Mr. Johns did not promptly contact the client. The client was then
informed by Mr. Johns's office that Mr. Johns would make the necessary corrections as soon as possible. As of the date of the client's complaint to the OPC, the error had not been
corrected.
PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On February 20, 2004, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of Utah Supreme Court publicly reprimanded Bruce Embry for violation
of Rules 1.4(b) (Communication), 1.5(b) (Fees), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
Mr. Embry was retained to file a Chapter 13
bankruptcy petition. The clients paid a retainer fee exceeding $750. Mr. Embry did not provide a written fee agreement to the clients. The plan was confirmed but a creditor sought relief
from the stay. Following a dispute over the valuation of stock, the plan confirmation was overturned by the Bankruptcy Court. Mr. Embry agreed to appeal the dismissal and mailed a notice
of appeal to the trustee and clients. However, Mr. Embry required the clients to pre-pay the filing fee for the notice of appeal before he would file it with the court. Mr. Embry
delegated to his secretary the responsibility to call the clients to inform them of this requirement. The notice of appeal was never filed in court because Mr. Embry did not ask his
clients for the filing fee until after the deadline had expired.
ADMONITION
On February 20, 2004, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme
Court admonished an attorney for violation of Rules 1.4(a) (Communication), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
An attorney represented a client to prevent the client's former spouse from leaving the state with their child, or file a petition to modify the divorce
decree. The attorney failed to respond to the client's requests for information and failed to explain the strategy issues when the client clearly did not understand the proceedings. The
attorney also failed to respond to the Office of Professional Conduct's lawful requests for information.
ADMONITION
On February 20, 2004, the Chair of the Ethics and
Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court admonished an attorney for violation of Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) and (b) (Communication), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary
Matters), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
An attorney represented a client in an uncontested divorce. The attorney did not
return the client's calls and failed to keep the client informed about the status of the case. As time went on, the client's informal settlement agreement with the client's spouse was no
longer applicable and the divorce became contested. The attorney failed to advise the client of the client's options in the contested divorce. The attorney also failed to respond to the
Office of Professional Conduct's lawful requests for information.
INTERIM SUSPENSION
On February 25, 2004, the Honorable Lynn W. Davis, Fourth Judicial District Court,
entered an Order of Interim Suspension, suspending Richard S. Clark II from the practice of law pending final disposition of the Complaint pending against him.
In summary:
On
January 24, 2001, the Honorable Donald J. Eyre, Fourth Judicial District Court entered a Sentence, Judgment, Commitment Notice in the case, State of Utah v. Richard S. Clark. Mr. Clark was adjudged guilty under the judgment for Driving Under the Influence of Alc/Drugs based on a guilty plea taken November 29, 2000. The interim suspension is based upon this conviction.
|
