|
RESIGNATION WITH DISCIPLINE PENDING
On November 1, 2002, the Honorable Christine M. Durham, Chief Justice, Utah Supreme Court, entered an Order Granting Verified
Petition for Consent to Resignation with Discipline Pending in the matter of Martin S. Tanner. In the Petition for Resignation with Discipline Pending, Mr. Tanner did not dispute the
essential facts which provide a basis that he violated Rules 3.3(a) (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 3.4(b) (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel), and 8.4(a), (c) and (d) (Misconduct) of
the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary the essential facts are: Mr. Tanner was retained to represent a client in a divorce action in the course of which he prepared and
knowingly submitted papers containing material misrepresentations to the Third Judicial District Court. The client suffered injury in the form of delays in the proceedings, as well as
inconvenience in investigating what had transpired in her case.
In the November 1, 2002 Order, Chief Justice Durham has permitted Mr. Tanner to continue to participate in the case
of Glade Leon Parduhn v. Natalie Buchi, et al., Utah Supreme Court case No. 2001-0926-SC, through completion of the appellate process and to continue to participate in the case of Julia
Ann Galbraith, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Jeffrey Leo Galbraith, deceased v. Pacific Corp., formerly Utah Power & Light Company, an Oregon
Corporation, et al., Third District Court, Civil No. 00-090-7121, through the anticipated mediation. Mr. Tanner is permitted to participate in an attorney capacity in both matters
provided he discloses his status to his clients, opposing counsel and any co-counsel, and his clients consent after full disclosure regarding this Petition.
SUSPENSION
On
October 3, 2002, the Honorable Pamela Heffernan, Second Judicial District Court, entered an Order of Discipline: Suspension, suspending Russell T. Doncouse from the practice of law for
one year for violation of Rules 5.5 (Unauthorized Practice of Law), 8.1(a) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), 8.4(c) (Misconduct), and 8.4(d) (Misconduct). The suspension is
effective beginning November 4, 2002.
On March 1, 2002, the Second Judicial District Court entered an Order suspending Mr. Doncouse for three months. During the period of
suspension, Mr. Doncouse continued to practice law and filed a false affidavit of compliance.
Aggravating factors include: prior record of discipline, selfish motive, multiple cases, deceptive practices.
Mitigating factors include: sincere, although incomplete effort to try
to comply with suspension by transferring cases, cooperation with the OPC, previously good character and reputation in the legal community.
The matter is the subject of an appeal to the Utah Supreme Court by the OPC.
ADMONITION
On October 10, 2002, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and
Discipline Committee for violation of Rules 5.1(c)(2) (Responsibilities of a Partner or Supervisory Lawyer) and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
In the capacity of supervising attorney, the attorney was informed by a subordinate attorney that the subordinate attorney had redacted a medical report. The submission of the
redacted medical report was an attempt to mislead, which did not in fact mislead. The supervising attorney allowed the matter to go without remediation for more than fifteen months and,
as an alternate trial strategy, allowed the subordinate attorney to say less than the truth about who redacted the document. [The subordinate attorney received a disciplinary suspension].
ADMONITION
On October 17, 2002, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee for violation of Rules 3.3(a)(1) (Candor Toward the
Tribunal), 8.4(d) (Misconduct), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
An attorney prepared affidavits for submission to a court that
incorrectly stated that the affidavits were based upon the attorney's personal knowledge.
ADMONITION
On October 18, 2002, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the
Ethics and Discipline Committee for violation of Rules 8.4(a) (Misconduct) and 8.4(d) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
An attorney used a partially
sealed document in a professional conference. In another incident, the attorney impermissibly disclosed details of a case to an opposing party. In a third incident, the attorney failed to
comply with public meeting notice requirements.
ADMONITION
On October 31, 2002, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee for
violation of Rules 3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions) and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
An attorney represented a client charged
with automobile assault and operating a motor vehicle resulting in a collision with a bicycle. The client was acquitted of the charges. Following the criminal trial, the attorney brought
an action against the cyclist alleging the cyclist attempted to extort money from the client for damages to the bicycle. The attorney accused the cyclist of conspiring with the cyclist's
neighbor who was in a separate legal dispute with the attorney's client. The attorney offered to refrain from filing the lawsuit against the cyclist if the cyclist would testify that the
cyclist's neighbor initiated the fabricated story and if the cyclist would pay the client a sum of money. The cyclist filed an answer to the complaint in court and a motion to dismiss.
The court dismissed the complaint.
ADMONITION
On October 31, 2002, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee for violation of Rules 1.5(b)
(Fees), 1.15(b) (Safekeeping Property), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
An attorney was retained to represent a client in a bankruptcy
action for which the client paid the attorney a flat fee of $850. The attorney did not communicate in writing to the client the basis or rate of the fees to be charged. The attorney
advised the client that the client may be ineligible for bankruptcy relief and advised the client to compromise two debts. The client provided the attorney with funds to pay the debts,
but later decided to pay just one of them. The client requested on three occasions that the attorney refund the money for the second debt. When the client received the attorney's billing
statement, the client discovered that the attorney had charged twenty-five percent of the amount paid to settle one of the debts. The attorney refunded a portion of the money intended to
compromise the second debt.
|
