|
PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On June 23, 2003, Michael R. Loveridge was publicly reprimanded by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of
Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(b) (Communication), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
A judgment was entered against Mr. Loveridge following a
lawsuit by his former clients. The causes of action alleged Mr. Loveridge's negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. Mr. Loveridge developed an estate plan for his former clients,
incorrectly advising them that there were no adverse tax consequences of implementing the estate plan.
Mitigating factors include: absence of a dishonest or selfish motive,
cooperation with disciplinary proceedings, imposition of other sanctions in the form of a substantial monetary judgment against him, remorse, and reliance on the assurance of client's
accountant that there would be no adverse consequences in following Mr. Loveridge's recommendation.
Aggravating factors include: prior record of discipline and substantial experience in the practice of law.
PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On June 20, 2003, M. Joy Jelte was publicly
reprimanded by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 1.4(b) (Communication), 1.5(b) (Fees), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and
Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
Ms. Jelte was retained to represent a new client in a divorce and child custody
matter. The client understood the matter would cost $500, but a month after retention Ms. Jelte asked for several thousand dollars. Ms. Jelte had no written fee agreement with the client
until the day of trial when she asked the client to sign such an agreement without the opportunity to read the document. Ms. Jelte did not provide the client invoices for her services
from July 2000, the point of retention, until after trial in April 2002. The client was unsophisticated and required, but did not receive, a significant effort from Ms. Jelte to explain
the client's case to the extent necessary to permit this client to make an informed decision regarding the representation. Ms. Jelte did not timely respond to the Office of Professional
Conduct's requests for information.
PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On June 17, 2003, Ted K. Godfrey was publicly reprimanded 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(a) and (b) (Communication), 8.4(d) (Misconduct), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional
Conduct.
In summary:
Mr. Godfrey was appointed to represent a client on appeal to the Utah Court of Appeals. The client filed the Notice of Appeal pro se; Mr. Godfrey failed to
review it. Mr. Godfrey filed briefs that did not meet the requirements of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. Mr. Godfrey failed to consult with his client regarding the issues to be
appealed. Mr. Godfrey failed to keep the client properly informed about the status of the case, and failed to adequately consult with the client.
ADMONITION
On June 18,
2003, 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:
An attorney was retained to represent a client in a matter before the Labor Commission. The Administrative Law Judge ordered the client to
attend a medical panel examination and to produce for the panel all medical records relating to the workers' compensation claim. The client delivered the medical records to the client's
attorney. Approximately three months later, the Administrative Law Judge requested the medical films from the client's attorney. Three months later, the case was dismissed without
prejudice for failure to cooperate with discovery. The attorney filed a motion to reinstate the client's claim and provided all medical records. However, since the medical films which
were essential to the claim were not included, and one year had passed since the evidentiary hearing, the motion was denied.
PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On June 17, 2003, Ruth
Wagner was publicly reprimanded by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating
Representation), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), 8.4(d) (Misconduct), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
Ms. Wagner was
retained to represent a client in a divorce matter. The parties' settlement stipulation was read into the court record. The court directed Ms. Wagner to prepare findings, conclusions and
a decree of divorce. Opposing counsel filed an objection to the pleadings prepared by Ms. Wagner. The court ordered Ms. Wagner to prepare new documents adding the court's ruling. Ms.
Wagner did not prepare the new pleadings. Ms. Wagner's client remarried and later found out the divorce had not been finalized. The opposing party sought and was granted a divorce nunc
pro tunc as of a date prior to Ms. Wagner's client's remarriage. Ms. Wagner failed to comply with the Office of Professional Conduct's requests for information.
PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On June 17, 2003, Ruth Wagner was publicly reprimanded by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4
(Communication), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
Ms. Wagner was retained to enforce her client's interest in an automobile purchase and trade-in. Ms. Wagner filed a complaint and requested temporary and permanent
injunctive relief. The defendant filed an answer and counterclaim. Ms. Wagner did not reply to the counterclaim and a default judgment was entered against her client. The defendant began
to enforce the judgment against Ms. Wagner's client. Ms. Wagner told her client that she was retiring but would complete the representation. Ms. Wagner thereafter failed to respond to her
client's letters, e-mails and telephone calls. Only after the client filed an Informal Bar Complaint did Ms. Wagner deliver the file. Ms. Wagner failed to comply with the Office of
Professional Conduct's requests for information.
PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On June 12, 2003, Richard G. Cook was publicly reprimanded by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline
Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 1.5(d)(2) (Fees), 1.8(a) (Conflict of Interest: Prohibited Transactions), 1.15(c) (Safekeeping Property), and 8.4(a)
(Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
Mr. Cook was retained to represent two clients based on a contingency fee agreement in a bankruptcy matter.
Pursuant to the same contingency fee agreement, Mr. Cook agreed to represent one of the clients in a criminal matter as associate local counsel. When the bankruptcy matter concluded Mr.
Cook deposited the settlement check into his trust account. Meanwhile, additional issues in the bankruptcy became apparent that required Mr. Cook to continue legal representation of the
clients. Eight months later, Mr. Cook prepared for his clients a revocable living trust. Mr. Cook was named as a second successor trustee. The following year, Mr. Cook's clients deposited
their settlement proceeds into money market accounts in the name of their trusts. Mr. Cook did not disclose to his clients how the disbursement and accounting of the trusts would occur or
how he would bill for work as trustee in writing in a manner that his clients could reasonably understand. Mr. Cook did not advise his clients to seek the advice of independent counsel
regarding the trustee appointment. Mr. Cook's client authorized him to withdraw money from the client's trust to pay attorney fees for himself and another attorney. Mr. Cook did not keep
the money separate before he made an accounting and severance of all interests involved.
Mitigating circumstances include: absence of prior record of discipline, absence of
dishonest or selfish motive, and good character or reputation.
ADMONITION
On June 11, 2003, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee
of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 5.5(a) (Unauthorized Practice of Law) and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
The attorney
changed the attorney's Utah State Bar's membership status to inactive. The attorney represented a client in mediation and in a Small Claims Court trial. The attorney did not inform the
client, opposing counsel, or the court that the attorney was an inactive member of the Utah State Bar.
ADMONITION
On June 5, 2003, 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:
An attorney was retained to represent defendants in a quiet title action. The attorney did not file an answer on behalf of the clients. The opposing counsel contacted the attorney's
office and was told by the office manager that the attorney was withdrawing as the defendant's counsel. The clients retained a new attorney, but the deadlines had expired and a default
judgment had entered. The attorney did not file a notice of withdrawal of counsel until two weeks before trial, and did not provide a copy to opposing counsel until eight days before
trial. The court did not sanction the attorney. The attorney refunded attorney fees to the clients and an amount they likely would have recovered had they prevailed in the quiet title
action.
ADMONITION
On May 28, 2003, 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), 1.4(a) (Communication), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
An attorney was retained to represent a client in a civil rights
action. The attorney failed to provide competent representation regarding collection of evidence for the civil rights case. The attorney failed to have all parties sign the retainer
agreement. When the attorney withdrew from the representation, the attorney sent the client's file to another attorney who once worked for the attorney. The client assumed that the new
attorney still worked with the attorney, but was later informed by the new attorney that this was not the case. The attorney failed to communicate fees in an effective manner.
ADMONITION
On May 28, 2003, 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), 3.3(a) (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
An
attorney was retained to represent a client in a civil action, seven weeks before trial. The attorney failed to prepare for trial, failed to timely raise an issue concerning an expert
witness, failed to timely review the file, failed to locate experts, and failed to talk to witnesses. The attorney made a false statement to the court regarding the date of retention. The
attorney made misrepresentations to the Office of Professional Conduct by failing to admit that the attorney had not talked to witnesses.
PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On May 28,
2003, Nathan N. Jardine was publicly reprimanded by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 1.7(b) (Conflict of Interest: General
Rule), 8.4(g)(1) (Misconduct), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
Mr. Jardine was retained by a married couple for defense against
citations for violations of mutual protective orders. One year later, after the parties divorced, one of the parties entered into a contingency fee agreement with Mr. Jardine in a sexual
harassment case against the client's former employer. Later, Mr. Jardine also represented the client in connection with a DUI citation. No separate fee agreement exists for the DUI
representation. Mr. Jardine's client was vulnerable because of the stressful situations created by the litigation. One month later, Mr. Jardine and his client commenced a romantic
relationship. Mr. Jardine had his client sign an affidavit stating the client was aware of the ethical rule prohibiting sexual relations with a client that exploit the attorney-client
relationship, but that Mr. Jardine had not exploited the attorney-client relationship in order to have sexual relations with the client. Mr. Jardine's sexual relations with his client had
the potential to limit his representation of his client in the sexual harassment case in that the client's emotional condition was at issue and evidence of consensual relationships may
have been raised.
ADMONITION
On May 19, 2003, 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.
In summary:
An attorney was retained to represent a client to file a
petition to modify a decree of divorce. Opposing counsel objected to the petition. The attorneys were unable to reach a settlement and the attorney did nothing on the matter for three
years. The attorney did not keep the client reasonably informed of the status of the matter and did not return the client's telephone calls.
ADMONITION
On May 19, 2003,
an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 4.1(a) (Truthfulness in Statements to Others), 5.3
(Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants), 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
An
attorney was retained by a collections agency. The attorney served the debtor's employer with garnishment papers. The debtor satisfied the debt and the employer contacted the attorney to
release the garnishment. The employer telephoned the attorney, but spoke to the attorney's non-lawyer assistant, who untruthfully stated to the employer that the release had been sent
out. The release was sent out two weeks later. The attorney also failed to comply with the Office of Professional Conduct's requests for information.
ADMONITION
On May
13, 2003, 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), and 8.4(a)
(Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
An attorney was retained to represent a client concerning the possibility of modifying the client's child support
payments. The attorney calculated an amount of child support based on the client's current income. The attorney failed to inform the client that it would be a violation of the court's
order if the client did not pay the required amount of child support as stated in the decree of divorce absent a subsequent court order modifying the decree. The attorney left it to the
client to decide what amount to pay. The client opted to pay the amount calculated by the attorney before obtaining a modification of the child support amount ordered in the divorce
decree. The attorney filed a petition to modify the decree of divorce. The attorney mailed a copy of the petition and a request for a waiver of service to the client's spouse and the
spouse's attorney, but the spouse refused to waive service, and the spouse's attorney did not return an acceptance of service. The attorney's staff submitted two default certificates to
court without prior review by the attorney. The court refused to sign the default order because of insufficient proof of service. The attorney was provided a new address for the spouse,
but failed to timely forward the petition to a constable for service.
ADMONITION
On June 26, 2003, 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), 1.16(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 personal injury case. The attorney's services were terminated by the client for the
attorney's failure to communicate with the client. The client's new attorney contacted the attorney and requested a copy of the client's file. The new attorney received a file, but
believed it was incomplete and contacted the attorney. The attorney did not respond to any of the new attorney's telephone calls or letters. The new attorney contacted opposing counsel
who stated that the client's case had been dismissed because of the attorney's failure to prosecute the case. The attorney did not make any attempts to oppose the dismissal and did not
provide any dismissal documents to the new attorney. The statute of limitations expired two months after the dismissal. The new attorney filed a motion to set aside the dismissal and the
attorney appeared at the hearing and was open and honest with the court with regard to events that led to the dismissal. The attorney's presence at the trial was integral to the client's
success in having the dismissal set aside.
Mitigating factors include: absence of prior record of discipline, absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, timely good faith effort to
rectify consequences of misconduct, cooperative attitude toward disciplinary proceedings.
|
