|
PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On December 31, 2003, the Honorable Roger S. Dutson, Second Judicial District Court, publicly reprimanded Samuel J. Conklin for violation of Rules 1.3
(Diligence), 1.4(a) (Communication), 1.5(b) and (c) (Fees), 1.15(b) (Safekeeping Property), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of
Professional Conduct.
In summary:
Mr. Conklin was retained to represent a client in an employment matter. The time spent by Mr. Conklin on the client's case was not
accurately reflected on the client's bill. Mr. Conklin admitted to the client that the work was overcharged, but he did not have time to look into the matter. Mr. Conklin did not respond
to the client's inquiries concerning the bill and failed to promptly deliver the settlement funds to the client. Mr. Conklin also failed to respond to the Office of Professional Conduct's
("OPC's") requests for information.
In another matter, Mr. Conklin was retained to negotiate a settlement with a title company. The client was the spokesperson for the
client's family. There was no written communication regarding the basis and rate of Mr. Conklin's fee, although it was reasonably foreseeable that the attorney's fees would exceed $750.
The case was settled and Mr. Conklin received the settlement check. The client inquired as to why the settlement check had not been forwarded to the client. Mr. Conklin did not promptly
respond to the client and later claimed that the settlement check had not been forwarded to the client because it was being held against an outstanding debt owed to Mr. Conklin by the
client's sibling for services rendered in another matter. Mr. Conklin charged the client a contingent fee based upon a percentage of the settlement amount, without a written statement.
Mr. Conklin sent a letter to the OPC concerning health problems, but failed to respond to the OPC's requests for information.
Mitigating factors include: Mr. Conklin experienced
personal problems during the period relevant to the complaints against him.
Aggravating factors include: Mr. Conklin has a prior record of discipline; there are multiple offenses;
and Mr. Conklin has substantial experience in the practice of law.
RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE
On March 15, 2004, the Honorable Ernie Jones, Second Judicial District Court,
entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of Discipline: Probation, placing Mark H. Gould on probation for a period of one year.
In summary:
In a
disciplinary order of the United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ("the Court") Mr. Gould was ordered to either pay a $100 sanction or resign from the bar. Mr. Gould did
not submit the sanction amount to the Court, nor did he tender a letter of resignation. The court issued a show cause order, but Mr. Gould did not respond. The Court then concluded that
Mr. Gould should be disbarred. As a result of this, the United States District Court of Utah ("U.S. District Court") issued an order to show cause for reciprocal discipline. Mr.
Gould responded. The U.S. District Court found that there was no evidence of misconduct involving fraud, dishonesty, or moral turpitude, and in consideration of Mr. Gould's mitigation of
a psychological condition, the U.S. District Court concluded that Mr. Gould should be placed on one year probation and ordered not to commit any further violation of the Rules of
Professional Responsibility or engage in other unprofessional conduct.
Mitigating factors include: Mr. Gould's personal and emotional problems are causally connected to the
misconduct, other penalties and sanctions, and cooperative attitude toward proceedings.
ADMONITION
On March 16, 2004, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of
the Utah Supreme Court admonished an attorney for violation of Rules 8.1 (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 divorce modification. A trial was held and the court ordered opposing counsel to prepare the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of
Law, and Order ("findings"), but opposing counsel did not do so. Several months later the attorney drafted and submitted findings to the court. The findings were entered by the
court. Therefore, the opposing counsel also filed findings with the court. The two findings were inadvertently signed by the court. The attorney was still counsel of record at the time
the two sets of findings were entered and a letter reflects that opposing counsel notified the attorney of the two signed findings. In response to requests for information from the bar
and in initial testimony at the disciplinary hearing, the attorney denied knowledge of the other order, until the Bar complaint was received by the attorney. However, in subsequent
testimony from the attorney at the disciplinary hearing, the attorney admitted to a conversation with the complainant prior to the filing of the Bar complaint, "Do you want me to
take care of this other order?"
ADMONITION
On March 22, 2004, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court admonished an attorney for
violation of Rules 1.1 (Competence) and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
An attorney was retained to represent a client charged with
serious multiple felonies. The attorney was also instructed to prepare a counterclaim in the client's civil case. The client retained the attorney's services in the criminal and civil
matters concurrently. The client claimed that evidence of fraud on the part of the opposing party in the civil case was provided to the attorney, but the attorney failed to amend the
client's civil pleadings to include a requested cause of action for fraud.
SUSPENSION
On March 29, 2004, the Honorable David L. Mower, Sixth Judicial District Court
suspended Jeffrey P. Gleave from the practice of law for a period of three years for violation of 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.16(d) (Declining or Termination
Representation), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), 8.4(a), (b), and (c) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. On March 19, 2002 the Court had previously
entered an order placing Mr. Gleave on interim suspension pending final disposition of this disciplinary matter. The effective of date of the Court's Order of Suspension is therefore
March 19, 2002.
In summary:
Mr. Gleave had three client Bar complaints, where the Court found that Mr. Gleave had violated the Rules of Professional Conduct Rules 1.1
(Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation), 8.1 (b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), 8.4(c) (Misconduct). However, the
most serious misconduct that the Court found was with respect to Mr. Gleave's criminal convictions leading to a violation of Rule 8.4(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Mr. Gleave
was convicted of Damage To Or Interruption Of A Communication Device, a Class B Misdemeanor, Assault, Domestic Violence, a Class A Misdemeanor, Child Abuse, a Class A Misdemeanor,
Aggravated Assault Against A Peace Officer, a Third Degree Felony, and Possession Of A Controlled Substance, a Third Degree Felony. On February 23, 2001, Mr. Gleave was sentenced to one
year in the Sevier County Jail with credit for time served. The statutory sentence for the conviction of each count was stayed with a thirty-six month probation period and numerous
probationary requirements.
Mitigating factors include: Mr. Gleave is affected by a mental disability or impairment, and that mental disability or impairment causally contributed
to his misconduct.
RESIGNATION WITH DISCIPLINE PENDING
On April 18, 2004, the Honorable Christine M. Durham, Chief Justice, Utah Supreme Court, entered an Order
Accepting Resignation with Discipline Pending concerning Richard K. Crandall.
In summary:
The Office of Professional Conduct ("OPC") received four complaints
against Mr. Crandall. Mr. Crandall submitted a Petition for Resignation with Discipline Pending to the Utah Supreme Court on March 18, 2004. Mr. Crandall's petition admits that the facts
constitute grounds for discipline.
The OPC filed a formal complaint in the Third District Judicial Court on September 1, 1998 concerning two of the complaints. On March 21, 2003,
the Third District Judicial Court entered an Order for Sanctions as a result of Mr. Crandall's failure to comply with discovery. In his Petition for Resignation with Discipline Pending,
Mr. Crandall admits to the merits of the earlier default against him and also admits to the merits of the two pending complaints against him. In one pending complaint, Mr. Crandall was
retained by a company, accepted fees, but did no work on behalf of the company. Mr. Crandall misrepresented the status of the case, failed to communicate with the company, and did not
return the unearned portion of the fees. Mr. Crandall also failed to respond to the OPC's requests for information. In the other pending complaint, Mr. Crandall was retained by a client
and the client's colleague to file a claim against their former employer. Although an action was filed, the case was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Mr. Crandall misrepresented the
status of the case, as well as his actions in pursuing it, and thereafter failed to communicate with his clients.
ADMONITION
On May 14, 2004, the Chair of the Ethics and
Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court admonished an attorney for violation of Rules 1.5(b) (Fees), 8.1 (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 criminal case. The client paid the attorney a fixed fee for the
representation. The client terminated the services of the attorney because they could not agree on an appropriate defense strategy. The client requested an itemized billing of services
and requested a refund of the unearned portion of the fee. The attorney did not provide the client with a written fee agreement that communicated the basis of the fee and failed to
indicate how a refund, if any, might be calculated. The attorney also failed to respond to the OPC's lawful requests for information by failing to disclose a fact necessary to correct a
misapprehension, and failed to provide an adequate explanation of the accounting and billing statement.
PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On May 30, 2004, the Chair of the Ethics and
Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court publicly reprimanded Sanford L. Beshear for violation of Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) (Communication), 1.16(a)(3) and (d) (Declining or
Terminating Representation), 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
Mr. Beshear was
retained to represent a client in a personal injury claim. Mr. Beshear did little or no work on the case. Mr. Beshear did not return most of his client's telephone calls and did not keep
the client informed of the status of the case. Approximately two weeks before the expiration of the statute of limitations in the case, the client terminated Mr. Beshear's services and
retained new counsel. The client's new counsel attempted to call Mr. Beshear to inform him his services had been terminated and to obtain the client's file. Mr. Beshear failed to forward
the file to the client's new counsel. Mr. Beshear then proceeded to file a complaint in court on behalf of the client when he knew, or should have known, that his services had been
terminated. Mr. Beshear also failed to respond to the OPC's lawful requests for information.
PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On May 30, 2004, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline
Committee of the Utah Supreme Court publicly reprimanded Sanford L. Beshear for violation of Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) (Communication), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of
Professional Conduct.
In summary:
Mr. Beshear was retained to represent a client in a personal injury case. There were long periods, even years, when Mr. Beshear
provided no real or substantial work on the client's case. Mr. Beshear failed to respond to the client's requests for information in a reasonable and timely manner.
ADMONITION
On May 25, 2004, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court admonished an attorney for violation of Rules 1.2(a) (Scope of Representation), 1.4
(Communication), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
An attorney was retained to represent a client in a divorce case. On the day
of trial, the Court was informed that it appeared the parties had reached a settlement, and opposing counsel was directed to prepare the stipulation for submission to the Court. The
attorney failed to discuss the options in the case with the client after settlement stalled, and the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure
to prosecute. The case was dismissed for lack of prosecution when the attorney and opposing counsel did not appear. The dismissal of the divorce case resulted in the dismissal of a
protective order restricting the opposing party's contact with the children. The attorney discussed the dismissal of the case with opposing counsel and agreed to take no steps to
reinstate the case until the parties were able to agree to a written settlement. The attorney did not consult with the client about this agreement. The attorney did not inform the client
about the dismissal of the divorce and possible effects the dismissal and agreement could have on the status of the protective order.
INTERIM SUSPENSION
On May 14, 2004,
the Honorable Robert K. Hilder, Third Judicial District Court entered an Order of Interim Suspension, suspending Carlos Chavez from the practice of law pending final disposition of the
Complaint pending against him.
In summary:
Mr. Chavez entered an appearance in a criminal case before the West Valley City Justice Court, but failed to appear for
pre-trial hearing, did not return the Court's telephone calls, and to a letter requiring him to show cause why he failed to appear. The Court set two other hearing dates, but Mr. Chavez
failed to appear. During a show cause hearing, Mr. Chavez admitted three counts of contempt of court, and on April 18, 2004, the Justice Court entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law Re: Contempt of Court concerning Mr. Chavez's conduct.
|
