|
PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On February 14, 2001, the Honorable Michael D. Lyon, Second Judicial District Court, entered an Order of Discipline: Reprimand reprimanding Stuwert B.
Johnson for violation of Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) (Communication), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), and 8.4(a) and (c) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional
Conduct.
Johnson was retained to represent a client in a personal injury action. The client provided Johnson with copies of her medical records and other personal information regarding
the automobile accident which was the subject of her personal injury action. Thereafter, Johnson misplaced the client's file containing her medical records and other information, but
failed to immediately inform her of this fact. The client attempted to contact Johnson by telephone on numerous occasions to inquire about the status of her matter, but Johnson failed to
return her telephone calls. Johnson failed to make adequate contact with the insurance carrier, and did not provide it with the needed information. Johnson represented to the client that
he had provided the insurance carrier with all relevant information concerning her matter, when in fact he had not.
ADMONITION
On February 21, 2001, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah State Bar for violation of Rules 1.1
(Competence), 1.2 (Scope of Representation), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.15(a) (Safekeeping Property), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The attorney was retained to represent a client regarding injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Prior to retaining the attorney, the client was represented by other
counsel, who referred the client to a chiropractor for treatment. The client received approximately sixty-five treatments from the chiropractor for a period of eight months. Thereafter,
the client became dissatisfied with the prior attorney's representation, partly because of the prior attorney's relationship to the chiropractor, and terminated the relationship with the
prior attorney and the chiropractor. After being retained by the client, the attorney executed a doctor's lien with the chiropractor concerning the client's outstanding chiropractic
bills. The lien did not contain a set amount that was due and owing. Thereafter, the attorney settled the client's case and received settlement funds on the client's behalf. The attorney
did not remember the lien held by the chiropractor and did not find the lien in the client's files when settlement funds were dispersed. Consequently, the attorney did not withhold funds
from the settlement for the chiropractor's services, nor did the attorney deal with determining the amount of the lien.
Aggravating factors include: substantial experience in the practice of law.
Mitigating factors include: absence of prior record of discipline and cooperation with the Office of Professional Counsel.
SUSPENSION
On February 27, 2001, the Honorable William B. Bohling, Third Judicial District Court, entered an Order of Suspension and Probation suspending John Alex
from the practice of law for six months for violation of Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.2 (Scope of Representation), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.5 (Fees), 1.15(b) (Safekeeping
Property), 3.2 (Expediting Litigation), 5.5 (Unauthorized Practice of Law), 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(c) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The
entire six month suspension was stayed. Alex was placed on probation for twenty-four months.
Alex was notified that he had been suspended from the practice of law as a result of his failure to comply with mandatory continuing legal education requirements. While
suspended, Alex signed and filed a Docketing Statement on a client's behalf with the Utah Supreme Court. Alex represented the same client in a civil matter. After filing a lawsuit on the
client's behalf, Alex failed to have the defendants served within 120 days, which resulted in the matter being dismissed without prejudice.
Alex was retained by a collection agency to
collect on several accounts and to file lawsuits if necessary. The collection agency paid Alex a fee for legal services to be performed and certain funds for costs of the various matters.
Thereafter, the collection agency attempted to contact Alex to inquire about the status of the collection matters by telephone, fax, and mail. Alex failed to promptly respond to these
requests. On at least one occasion, Alex responded with a general status report, but failed to timely respond to the collection agency's requests for information. In his representation of
the collection agency, Alex failed to provide competent representation and failed to have the skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for such a representation. Alex
failed to abide by the collection agency's decisions concerning the objectives of the representation and failed to consult with it as to the means by which to pursue them. Alex failed to
act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the collection agency. Alex failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the
collection agency and its customers
An individual was sent a "collections letter" for an unpaid bill owed to a department store. The individual went to Alex's law office and paid the bill with a check
made out to Alex personally. Thereafter, the individual received a letter from a collection agency informing him that they had been retained to collect the amount owing to the department
store. Alex received funds from the individual to pay a debt owed by the individual to the department store. Although part or all of the funds belonged to someone other than Alex, he
failed to promptly notify, deliver, and account for the funds.
Alex was retained to represent a client in a divorce matter and related temporary and protective orders. Alex never obtained a written fee agreement with the client although the
cost of that legal representation exceeded $750, and Alex reasonably should have expected that the cost of the legal representation would exceed $750.
Alex was retained to represent a client in a divorce matter. Alex failed to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of her matter and failed promptly to comply with
reasonable requests for information; Alex further failed to explain the matter to the extent reasonably necessary to enable the client to make informed decisions regarding her divorce.
Alex was retained to represent a client in the recovery of disputed and converted funds from another person. Although Alex agreed to represent the client on a contingency fee
basis, he never obtained a written fee agreement. Alex failed to provide competent representation and failed to have the skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for such
a representation. Alex failed to abide by the client's decisions concerning the objectives of the representation and failed to consult with her as to the means by which to pursue them.
Alex failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness. Alex failed to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of her pending matter and failed promptly to comply with
reasonable requests for information about her matters; Alex further failed to explain the matter to the extent reasonably necessary to enable the client to make informed decisions. Alex
failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client. Alex misrepresented to the client the status of her matter.
During the course of its investigation into the informal complaints filed against Alex, the Office of Professional Conduct ("OPC") requested on numerous occasions that
Alex submit written responses to each of the complaints and produce specific records and documents. In addition, the OPC sent Notices of Informal Complaint in each matter to Alex. Under
the Rules of Lawyer Discipline and Disability, Alex was to respond within twenty days to the Notices of Informal Complaint. Alex failed to submit written responses, failed to timely
produce the documents and responses requested by the OPC, and failed to attend the Screening Panel hearings held in those matters.
Alex failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing four other clients. Alex failed to keep the clients reasonably informed about the status of their
pending matters and failed to comply with the clients' reasonable requests for information about their matters; Alex further failed to explain the matters to the extent reasonably
necessary to enable the clients to make informed decisions.
Mitigating factors include: personal or emotional problems; good faith effort to rectify the consequences of the misconduct involved; and remorse.
ADMONITION
On February 28, 2001, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah State Bar for violation of Rules 8.4(a) and
(d) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The attorney represented a client in a civil action. The court in the civil action directed the attorney to prepare an order. The attorney failed to prepare and file an order,
consistent with the court's directive, within the fifteen-day time frame required by Rule 4-504 of the Code of Judicial Administration.
PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On March 28, 2001, the Honorable J. Dennis Frederick, Third Judicial District Court, entered an Order of Reprimand reprimanding John L. McCoy for
violation of Rules 1.15(a), (b), and (c) (Safekeeping Property) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
McCoy was an agent for Attorney's Title Guarantee Fund ("ATGF") for the purpose of issuing title insurance. Pursuant to the agency agreement McCoy entered into with
ATGF, he was to collect title insurance premiums at the closing of each real estate transaction, holding thirty percent of each premium in a trust/escrow account for ATGF, and remitting
it to ATGF within thirty days of each transaction. In the course of his agency on behalf of ATGF, McCoy issued several title insurance policies for which he did not promptly account or
promptly provide ATGF with its portion of the funds. McCoy received funds which belonged to ATGF and placed those funds into a trust/escrow account.
McCoy had an employee who was, for certain limited purposes, his agent. McCoy allowed the employee to have signatory power over the trust/escrow account in which McCoy was to
hold third-party funds belonging to ATGF. After an initial period of supervision during which McCoy and the employee together handled the closing paperwork for real estate sales
transactions, the closings and paper work of the sales were handled by the employee. The employee, without McCoy's knowledge or consent, misappropriated ATGF funds from the trust/escrow
account. ATGF sent several letters to McCoy listing all title insurance policies that he held and requesting that he account for all title jackets and distribute all funds he had
collected on ATGF's behalf. McCoy sent at least one of these written requests from ATGF to the employee and asked that he account for the title jackets. McCoy has paid funds to ATGF to
replace the funds that his employee misappropriated. The court ordered McCoy to provide a final accounting to ATGF of all policy jackets and to pay any monies owed to ATGF within six
months of the order.
McCoy's employee also arranged a real estate closing on a condominium owned by an individual. Certain of the individual's and third-party debts were paid from the proceeds of
the real estate closing. In addition to the debts paid from the real estate closing proceeds, McCoy was to pay an additional amount out of the trust/escrow account to a third party. The
employee misappropriated the amount from the trust/escrow account and there were insufficient funds in the account to pay third parties. The employee did this without McCoy's knowledge or
consent. A dispute existed as to whether the amount was to be paid to the individual or another third-party. Since it was disputed who was to receive the funds, McCoy interpleaded the
funds into District Court. McCoy used his personal funds to replace the amount the employee misappropriated from his trust/escrow account in the individual's condominium sale.
McCoy was negligent in allowing the employee signatory power over the trust/escrow account and was negligent in his supervision of the employee in his handling of the
trust/escrow account and the closing paperwork for real estate sales transactions and sales.
McCoy violated Rules 1.15(a), (b) and (c) (Safekeeping Property) by negligently failing promptly to account for funds he received on behalf of ATGF, by negligently failing
promptly to notify ATGF upon receiving funds belonging to it, and by negligently failing promptly to deliver those funds to ATGF. McCoy further violated Rule 1.15 by negligently
supervising the use of his trust/escrow account in such a manner that his employee was able to misappropriate third-party funds.
Mitigating circumstances include: absence of a dishonest or selfish motive; timely good faith effort to make restitution or to rectify the consequences of the misconduct
involved; and remorse.
ADMONITION
On April 2, 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(a) (Communication), 1.5(a) (Fees) and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The attorney was retained to help a client recover stolen property, or to obtain a judgment against the person who took the property. The client periodically asked the attorney
for updates concerning the case, but the attorney did not initiate any contact with the client, and the client was only intermittently successful in reaching the attorney. The attorney
told the client that there was a trial date, but the day before the trial, the attorney informed the client of a settlement proposal. The client agreed to accept settlement and repeatedly
requested a copy of the settlement agreement, but the attorney never provided it to the client. When the deadline passed for payment of the settlement and the client had not received any
money, the client called the attorney repeatedly without success. Thereafter, the attorney told the client that they might have to pursue payment of the judgment. The client again made
numerous unsuccessful attempts to reach the attorney to find out what would be the implications of an action to enforce judgment. A full year after the settlement should have been paid,
the attorney told the client that they might have to go back to court to seek a default judgment. Again, the attorney failed to explain what might be entailed. Several months later, the
attorney told the client that the settlement was worthless, and the client would have to go after the opposing party's property. The attorney told the client a date had been set to seize
the property. The day before the seizure date, the attorney informed the client that the opposing party had filed bankruptcy. Although the attorney claimed to have attended a meeting of
creditors, he was unable to tell the client under what chapter the bankruptcy had been filed. No further progress was made, despite repeated calls to the attorney's office. Although the
matter was pursued on a contingency fee basis, there was no written fee agreement.
RESIGNATION PENDING DISCIPLINE
On March 29, 2001, the Honorable Richard C. Howe, Chief Justice, Utah Supreme Court, executed an Order Accepting Resignation Pending
Discipline in the matter of Dean H. Becker.
On June 2, 2000, Becker was suspended from the practice of law for two years. Thereafter, Becker failed to comply with the District Court's Order of Suspension and Rule 26,
Rules of Lawyer Discipline and Disability.
Although Becker received notice that he was suspended for failing to pay dues to the Utah State Bar in September 1998, Becker made appearances as an attorney representing
clients while suspended.
Becker has prior discipline which constitutes an aggravating circumstance under Rule 6, Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions.
ADMONITION
On April 2, 2001, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah State Bar for violation of Rules 1.8(a) and (h)
(Conflict of Interest: Prohibited Transactions) and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The attorney represented a client in several legal matters. The attorney entered into a stipulation and release of claims with the client that prospectively limited the
attorney's liability for malpractice. The client was not independently represented in making the agreement with the attorney. The attorney allowed the client an opportunity to repudiate
the stipulation and seek counsel.
Aggravating factors include: substantial experience in the practice of law.
Mitigating factors include: cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings.
|
