|
RESIGNATION PENDING DISCIPLINE
On September 21, 2001, the Honorable Richard C. Howe, Chief Justice, Utah Supreme Court, executed an Order Accepting Resignation Pending Discipline
in the matter of Ralph W. Curtis.
The Office of Professional Conduct ("OPC") notified Curtis of its investigation into allegations made against him and requested that he provide a written response thereto. Curtis
failed to respond in writing to the OPC's requests for information.
Curtis failed to provide competent representation to clients in violation of Rule 1.1 (Competence); failed to abide
by clients' decisions concerning the objectives of representation in violation of Rule 1.2(a) (Scope of Representation); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing his clients in violation of Rule 1.3 (Diligence); failed to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters and failed to promptly comply with reasonable
requests for information in violation of Rule 1.4(a) (Communication); failed to explain matters to the extent reasonably necessary to enable clients to make informed decisions regarding
representation in violation of Rule 1.4(b) (Communication); charged excessive fees in violation of Rule 1.5(a); represented a client when the representation was materially limited by
Curtis's own interest in violation of Rule 1.7(b) (Conflict of Interest: General Rule); failed to hold property of clients or third persons in his possession in connection with a
representation separate from his own property in violation of Rule 1.15(a) (Safekeeping Property); failed to promptly notify clients or third persons upon receiving funds or other
property to which the clients or third persons had an interest in violation of Rule 1.15(b) (Safekeeping Property); failed to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect
clients' interests upon termination of representation in violation of Rule 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation); failed to respond to the OPC's lawful demands for information
in violation of Rule 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters); violated the Rules of Professional Conduct in violation of Rule 8.4(a) (Misconduct); engaged in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(c) (Misconduct); and engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule
8.4(d) (Misconduct).
RESIGNATION PENDING DISCIPLINE
On September 21, 2001, the Honorable Richard C. Howe, Chief Justice, Utah Supreme Court, executed an Order Accepting Resignation Pending Discipline
in the matter of Michael J. Glasmann. In the Petition for Resignation Pending Discipline, Glasmann admitted that he violated Rule 8.4(d) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
During the course of presiding over a criminal case as a judge, Glasmann failed to initially disclose that he had had an intimate relationship with the criminal defendant.
ADMONITION
On September 25, 2001, the Honorable L. A. Dever entered an Order of Discipline: Admonition and Probation admonishing an attorney for violation of Rules 1.3
(Diligence) and 8.4(a) and (c) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The attorney was also placed on private probation for a period of one year.
The attorney was retained to represent two clients in an adoption matter. On several occasions the attorney misrepresented to the clients that court dates were set in the adoption matter.
The attorney later advised the clients that the court dates were canceled for one reason or another. Thereafter, the clients contacted the court and learned that the adoption matter had
not been filed by the attorney. The attorney admitted to the clients that the attorney procrastinated in the work on their file, did not complete their work in a timely manner, and made
material misrepresentations to them regarding the status of their case during the course of the representation. The attorney apologized to the clients, returned their retainer fee, and
suggested they file a complaint with the Bar.
Aggravating factors include: prior record of discipline and substantial experience in the practice of law.
Mitigating factors include: timely good faith effort to make restitution and to rectify the consequences of the misconduct involved; cooperative attitude towards the disciplinary
proceedings; and remorse.
ADMONITION
On October 18, 2001, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rule 1.5(b) (Fees) of
the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The attorney was retained to represent a client in a criminal matter. Prior to being retained in the criminal matter, the attorney had not regularly represented the client. Although the
attorney charged the client fees in excess of $750, the attorney failed to communicate in writing the basis or rate of the fee.
Mitigating factors include: cooperation with the Office of Professional Conduct.
ADMONITION
On October 18, 2001, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rule 1.15 (Safekeeping
Property) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The attorney and a client signed a doctor's lien whereby the attorney agreed to withhold funds from any settlement involving the client and directly pay the funds to the doctor to cover
the amount owed by the client. Thereafter, the attorney received a settlement check on the client's behalf but failed to withhold funds owed to the doctor pursuant to the attorney's
obligation under the lien before forwarding the funds to the client.
Mitigating factors include: cooperation with the Office of Professional Conduct.
ADMONITION
On October 30, 2001, 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.
The attorney knowingly failed to respond to the Office of Professional Conduct's reasonable requests for information concerning an informal complaint filed against the attorney.
|
