|
DISBARMENT
On May 24, 2002, the Honorable Douglas Cornaby, Eighth Judicial District Court, entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment of Disbarment disbarring Alan
Williams from the practice of law for violation of Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 3.3(a) (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and
Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a), (c) and (d) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
In one matter, Williams represented a client in the Utah Court of
Appeals. Williams failed to file a brief by the deadline, despite being given an extension. The Utah Court of Appeals ordered Williams to file a brief or motion for extension. Williams
failed to do so and his inaction was treated as a contempt of court. Williams later misrepresented to the Utah Court of Appeals that he had completed and mailed a brief to the court and
opposing counsel. The Utah Court of Appeals also found that Williams had been discharged for rendering ineffective assistance in various other matters.
In another matter, Williams
represented a client in a civil rights matter. Williams failed to communicate with his client, did not perform any meaningful legal services on the client's behalf, and allowed the
statute of limitations to run on the case. Williams thereafter failed to cooperate with the Office of Professional Conduct in its investigation of the complaint.
Aggravating factors include: obstruction of the disciplinary proceedings.
DISBARMENT
On May 9, 2002, the Honorable Roger A. Livingston, Third Judicial District Court,
entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment of Disbarment disbarring Jose Luis Trujillo from the practice of law for violation of Rule 1.1 (Competence), 1.4(a)
(Communication), 1.5(a) (Fees), 1.7(b) (Conflict of Interest: General Rule), 1.15(b) and (c) (Safekeeping Property), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 3.1 (Meritorious
Claims and Contentions), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a), (b), (c) and (d) (Misconduct).
In summary:
In representing four clients, Trujillo filed
incorrect papers, failed to communicate with clients, charged nonrefundable fees, failed to return unearned fees, represented a client with whom he had a business interest, comingled
trust funds with general funds to avoid an Internal Revenue Service levy, misappropriated client funds, failed to understand the posture of a case involving bail money, failed to return
bail money, initiated an immigration proceeding although it was without merit, and failed to respond, or delayed responding, to the Office of Professional Conduct's requests for
information.
SUSPENSION
On February 28, 2002, the Honorable Ernest W. Jones, Second Judicial District Court, entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of
Suspension suspending Frank A. Berardi from the practice of law for two years for violation of Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation),
5.3 (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants), 5.4(a) and (b) (Professional Independence of a Lawyer), 5.5 (Unauthorized Practice of Law), 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary
Matters), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct while representing seven different clients. The Order of Suspension effective date is May 29, 2002.
In summary:
While representing some of the clients, Berardi failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, failed to keep clients reasonably informed about their matters,
failed to attend court hearings, and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. In six of the matters, Berardi permitted his paralegal to solicit and advise
clients, allowed the paralegal to accept money for the paralegal's legal services, failed to ensure that the money collected by the paralegal was kept in accordance with Rule 1.15 of the
Rules of Professional Conduct, and entered into a partnership and shared legal fees with the paralegal. Berardi also failed to respond to the Office of Professional Conduct's requests for
information in most of the matters, did not return a client's file for some time after his services were terminated, and failed to refund the unused portion of a retainer fee.
Mitigating factors include: inexperience in the practice of law and good character or reputation.
Aggravating factors include: dishonest or selfish motive; a pattern of misconduct;
multiple offenses; obstruction of disciplinary proceedings; submission of false evidence, false statements, and other deceptive practices during the disciplinary process; refusal to
acknowledge the wrongful nature of the misconduct involved, either to the client or to the disciplinary authority; vulnerability of the victim; and lack of good faith effort to make
restitution or rectify the consequences of the misconduct involved.
The matter is on appeal to the Utah Supreme Court.
ADMONITION
On April 24, 2002, an attorney
was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 1.4(a) (Communication), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary
Matters), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
The attorney's firm represented a client in a wrongful termination matter. The client worked
with one of the attorney's associates. The associate terminated employment with the firm and communication from the firm to the client ceased. The client requested an itemized bill from
the firm. The firm failed to send the client an itemized bill or return the client's telephone calls. The attorney failed to respond in writing to the Office of Professional Conduct's
requests for information.
ADMONITION
On April 24, 2002, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for
violation of Rules 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters) and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
The Office of Professional Conduct
(ÒOPCÓ) notified the attorney of its investigation of allegations against the attorney and requested that the attorney provide a written response. The attorney failed to respond in
writing to the OPC's requests for information.
ADMONITION
On April 24, 2002, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah
Supreme Court for violation of Rules 1.4 (Communication) and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
The attorney's firm represented the client in
a sexual harassment matter. The client worked with one of the firm's associates. The associate terminated employment with the firm and the client elected to move her case with the
associate. The client terminated the firm's representation and requested a refund of the unearned portion of the retainer. The attorney failed to respond to the client's requests for a
refund.
ADMONITION
On May 1, 2002, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 1.5(b)
(Fees), 1.15(a) and (b) (Safekeeping Property), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
The attorney was hired to represent the client's
brother in an immigration matter. The attorney failed to enter into a written fee agreement with the client. The attorney also failed to keep a complete accounting of the retainer and
failed to render a full accounting upon the client's request.
ADMONITION
On May 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), 1.4(a) (Communication), 1.15 (Safekeeping Property), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
The attorney failed to maintain regular office hours, failed to perform work outside of the courtroom, failed to keep two appointments, and failed to attend two court
hearings. The attorney failed to keep clients informed of the status of their cases and failed to return telephone calls. The attorney also failed to hold a law firm trust account.
ADMONITION
On May 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(a) and (b)
(Diligence), 1.5(b) (Fees), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
The attorney represented a client in a divorce action. The attorney failed
to file a timely response to a Motion for Summary Judgment; the attorney filed it on the day of the hearing. The attorney also failed to obtain necessary accounting documents for trial,
and failed to enter into a written fee agreement with the client.
ADMONITION
On May 7, 2002, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline
Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 1.8 (Conflict of Interest: Prohibited Transactions) and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
The attorney represented a client in a personal injury auto accident case. The attorney filed an attorney fees lien against the client. The attorney contracted with the
client agreeing to release the attorney lien in exchange for withdrawal of the client's Bar complaint. The attorney did not advise the client to seek the advice of independent counsel in
the transaction.
ADMONITION
On May 7, 2002, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of
Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.8(a)(2) (Conflict of Interest: Prohibited Transactions), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
The attorney was
hired to represent the complainants' adult child in a criminal matter. The attorney failed to protect the adult child's interests by failing to attend a hearing and failing to request the
adult child's release on bail. The attorney contracted with the complainants agreeing to pay money in exchange for withdrawal of their Bar complaint and did not advise the complainants to
seek the advice of independent counsel in the transaction.
ADMONITION
On May 7, 2002, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of
the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of
Professional Conduct.
In summary:
The attorney represented the client in a personal injury case. The attorney did not return the client's telephone calls or otherwise keep the
client informed about the case for a period of time. The attorney failed to timely respond in writing to the Office of Professional Conduct's requests for information.
ADMONITION
On May 7, 2002, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 1.1 (Competence) and 8.4(a)
(Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
The attorney represented the client in an immigration matter. The attorney was instructed to file an appeal to the
Board of Immigration Appeals, but failed to timely file it. The Board of Immigration Appeals granted the client's motion to reopen the matter based upon the attorney's ineffective
assistance of counsel.
Mitigating factors include: absence of prior record of discipline; disclosure to client and cooperation with the Office of Professional Conduct during its
investigation of this matter.
ADMONITION
On May 20, 2002, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for
violations of Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication) and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
The attorney was hired to represent the
complainant's adult children in a child custody case, a divorce case, and a criminal matter. The attorney was also hired to represent the complainant's other adult child in a child
custody matter. The attorney failed to attend a juvenile court review hearing and failed to timely attend another juvenile court review hearing to represent one adult child. The attorney
failed to send the other adult child a copy of the divorce decree and failed to inform that Christmas visitation had not been included in the decree, although it had been previously
stipulated to by the parties.
Mitigating factors include: absence of prior record of discipline and timely good faith effort to rectify the consequences of the misconduct involved.
ADMONITION
On May 20, 2002, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violations of Rules 1.1
(Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
The attorney represented a client in an alimony matter. The client's ex-spouse listed the alimony on a Chapter 13 bankruptcy; the client instructed the attorney to file a proof of claim.
The attorney did not file a proof of claim. The attorney sent the client a billing statement, although no work had been done. When the client did not pay the bill, the attorney
discontinued representation without informing the client.
ADMONITION
On June 3, 2002, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of
the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 1.5(b) (Fees) and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
The attorney represented the client in a
child visitation matter in which it was reasonably foreseeable that the total attorney's fees would exceed $750. The attorney failed to enter into a written fee agreement with the client
and failed to communicate the basis or rate of the fee in writing before or within a reasonable time.
Mitigating factors include: cooperation with the Office of Professional Conduct.
ADMONITION
On June 3, 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.
In summary:
The attorney
represented the client in a debt collection matter. The attorney told the client not to appear at the court hearing and that the attorney would appear on behalf of the client. The
attorney did not appear at the court hearing.
ADMONITION
On July 3, 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.
In summary:
The attorney represented the client in a criminal
matter. The court sent the attorney a notice of pretrial hearing. The prosecutor filed a motion to continue the trial but the court did not issue a ruling prior to the pretrial hearing.
The prosecutor and client were present for pretrial, but the attorney failed to attend. The attorney had not contacted the court to inform it of the attorney's absence. The court reset
the hearing and telephoned the attorney and sent the attorney written notice of the new pretrial date. The prosecutor and client were present for the new pretrial hearing, but the
attorney failed to attend and failed to inform the court of a conflict in the attorney's schedule or file a motion to continue it.
|
