|
SUSPENSION
On April 13, 2001, the Honorable Leslie A. Lewis, Third Judicial District Court, entered an Order of Discipline: Suspension suspending George G. Ventura from the
practice of law for ninety days for violation of Rules 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information) and 8.4(a) and (b) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In addition to the ninety
day suspension, Ventura was placed on unsupervised probation for nine months.
Ventura provided newspaper reporters, who were doing a story about his former employer, Chiquita Brands International, with the means by which they could access the voicemail boxes of high
level Chiquita lawyers and executives. Ventura provided the reporters with voicemail numbers, personal access passcodes, and instructions on how to access both new and stored voicemail
messages. Ventura made these disclosures without consulting with or obtaining the consent of Chiquita Brands International. The Hamilton County Ohio Grand Jury indicted Ventura with ten
felony offenses. Ventura entered a plea of no contest to four charges of attempted unauthorized access to computer systems, in violation of the Ohio Revised Code. Each of these violations
is a first-degree misdemeanor.
Mitigating factors include: no prior record of discipline; cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings; good reputation; and imposition of other penalties and sanctions.
Aggravating factors include: a pattern of misconduct in that Ventura disclosed the confidential information on more than one occasion; substantial experience in the practice of law; and
illegal conduct.
ADMONITION
On April 26, 2001, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah State Bar for violation of Rules 5.3(a) and (b)
(Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants) and 8.4(d) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The attorney employed a nonlawyer assistant who misrepresented himself as a lawyer to clients, prospective clients, and others. The nonlawyer assistant solicited by mail or by telephone
new clients for the attorney. During telephone conversations with prospective clients, the nonlawyer assistant informed prospective clients that he was a lawyer. The attorney was advised
of the nonlawyer assistant's conduct and the attorney continued to employ the nonlawyer assistant. The nonlawyer assistant continued to misrepresent himself as being a lawyer and
continued to solicit clients on the attorney's behalf. Although the attorney did not authorize the nonlawyer assistant to misrepresent to prospective or current clients that he was a
lawyer, the attorney was negligent in supervising the nonlawyer assistant.
SUSPENSION
On May 7, 2001, the Honorable Glenn Iwasaki, Third Judicial District Court, entered an Order of Discipline by Consent suspending Larry Gantenbein from the practice of
law for twenty-four months; eighteen months of the suspension were stayed.
On August 20, 1999, the Idaho Supreme Court suspended Gantenbein from the practice of law in Idaho for twenty-four months; eighteen months of the suspension were stayed. Pursuant to Rule
22, Rules of Lawyer Discipline and Disability, the Office of Professional Conduct sought reciprocal discipline against Gantenbein. The conduct for which Gantenbein was disciplined in
Idaho would result in at least the same level of discipline in Utah.
ADMONITION
On May 14, 2001, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah State Bar for violation of Rules 3.4(b) (Fairness to
Opposing Party and Counsel), 4.1(a) (Truthfulness in Statements to Others), 5.3(b) and (c) (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants), and 8.4(a) and (c) (Misconduct) of the Rules
of Professional Conduct.
The attorney directed a secretary to notarize an affidavit that was not signed in the secretary's presence. Thereafter, the attorney notarized two documents that were executed several
months earlier. The attorney dated the documents with the date they were executed although this was not the date upon which the attorney notarized them.
Aggravating factors include: pattern of misconduct.
Mitigating factors include: no prior record of discipline; cooperative attitude towards disciplinary proceedings; and the circumstances under which the notarizations occurred did not alter
the factual substance or accuracy of the affected documents, and did not prejudice or harm the attorney's clients or other parties.
ADMONITION
On May 14, 2001, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah State Bar for violation of Rule 1.15(b) (Safekeeping
Property) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The attorney was retained to collect an out-of-state judgment on a client's behalf. During a nine month time period, seven partial settlement checks were sent to the attorney's law office.
When the settlement checks arrived at the attorney's law office the attorney's secretary deposited the funds into the attorney's trust account and recorded the payments on a computer
database. Although the database was designed to track payments received on clients' behalf and disbursements to clients, a malfunction in the computer system resulted in the client's
funds not appearing on the attorney's monthly computer printouts. The attorney was unaware that the client's funds had been received and deposited into the attorney's trust account;
therefore, the attorney failed to promptly notify the client of receipt of the funds and failed to promptly account for and deliver the funds to the client. Upon being contacted by the
client regarding the funds, and after verifying that the funds had in fact been received and deposited, the attorney made complete payment of the funds to the client, including interest.
At all relevant times the client's settlement funds remained in the attorney's trust account.
Mitigating factors include: absence of prior record of discipline and cooperation with the Office of Professional Conduct.
PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On May 29, 2001, the Honorable Leslie A. Lewis, Third Judicial District Court, entered an Order of Discipline: Public Reprimand reprimanding James D. Mickelson
for violation of Rules 1.2(a) (Scope of Representation) and 1.3 (Diligence) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Mickelson was retained to represent a client in a personal injury matter. Mickelson failed to act diligently on the client's behalf, including failing to provide requested documents to the
client's insurance company. Mickelson failed to return the client's telephone calls and failed to complete the matter for which he was hired. Mickelson transferred the client's case to
another attorney without the client's knowledge or consent.
Mitigating factors include: no prior record of discipline and cooperative attitude toward disciplinary proceedings.
Aggravating factors include: vulnerability of the victim and substantial experience in the practice of law.
ADMONITION
On June 4, 2001, an attorney was admonished by the Vice Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah State Bar for violation of Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.3
(Diligence), 1.5(a) (Fees), 1.15(b) (Safekeeping Property), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The attorney represented a client in a divorce matter. The client paid the attorney a retainer fee. The client's divorce papers were finalized and signed by both parties to the divorce and
returned to the attorney for filing, but the attorney failed to file them. The attorney failed to provide the client with billing statements or an accounting of how the retainer fee was
earned. The Office of Professional Conduct received an informal complaint from the client concerning the attorney, and sent the attorney three letters requesting a written response to the
complaint. The attorney failed to submit a written response.
ADMONITION
On June 20, 2001, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah State Bar for violation of Rules 1.7 (Conflict of
Interest: General Rule) and 8.4(a) and (d) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The attorney engaged in inappropriate behavior with a client that limited the attorney's representation of the client. Additionally, during a legal consultation with another client, the
attorney made comments of a sexual nature. The comments were inappropriate, eroded the attorney/client relationship, and were offensive to the client.
Mitigating factors include: cooperation with the Office of Professional Conduct.
ADMONITION
On June 20, 2001, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah State Bar for violation of Rule 1.5(b) (Fees) of the Rules
of Professional Conduct.
The attorney received a $2500 retainer fee from clients whom the attorney had not previously regularly represented. The attorney failed to have a written fee agreement with the clients and
did not communicate to the clients in writing before or within a reasonable time after commencement of the representation the basis or rate of the fee.
Mitigating factors include: the attorney submitted to binding fee arbitration and returned a portion of the retainer fee to the client.
ADMONITION
On June 20, 2001, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah State Bar for violation of Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4
(Communication), and 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The attorney was retained to represent a client in a divorce proceeding. The attorney failed to act with reasonable diligence in representing the client. The attorney did not keep the
client reasonably informed about the status of the client's divorce, did not promptly comply with the client's reasonable requests for information, and did not adequately explain the
client's divorce matter to the extent reasonably necessary to enable the client to make informed decisions regarding the matter. The attorney failed to timely return the client's file
after the representation was terminated.
ADMONITION
On June 20, 2001, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah State Bar for violation of Rules 4.2 (Communication With
Person Represented By Counsel) and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The attorney served an order compelling attendance upon a witness whom the attorney knew was represented by counsel.
Mitigating factors include: absence of prior record of discipline; absence of dishonest or selfish motive; and cooperative attitude toward proceedings.
|
