|
ADMONITION
On March 10, 2003, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee for violation of Rules 1.1 (Competence), 5.5
(Unauthorized Practice of Law), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
An attorney was retained to represent a client in a divorce matter. The
divorce complaint was filed first by the client's spouse in another state. The attorney filed a Notice of Appearance, Memorandum in Support of Special Appearance, and Motion to Dismiss in
the other state. The attorney was not licensed to practice law in that state, and did not file a motion to appear pro hac vice. The attorney's Motion to Dismiss was dismissed.
RESIGNATION WITH DISCIPLINE PENDING
On March 16, 2003, the Honorable Christine Durham, Chief Justice, Utah Supreme Court, entered an Order Accepting Resignation Pending Discipline
concerning Walter Thomas Harris.
In summary:
The Office of Professional Conduct ("OPC") received eight complaints against Mr. Harris which were the basis of a
Complaint filed against him in District Court. Mr. Harris submitted a Petition for Resignation with Discipline Pending to the Utah Supreme Court on February 26, 2003 in which he admitted
"many of the facts upon which the allegations of misconduct set forth in the Complaint filed against him." Although the facts were not adjudicated, Mr. Harris's default was
entered and the matter set for a sanctions hearing because of Mr. Harris's failure to cooperate with discovery in violation of a court order compelling his cooperation. Mr. Harris's
petition admits that these facts constitute grounds for discipline. The facts established by default are that Mr. Harris failed to communicate with clients, and in some cases, an opposing
party and creditors; failed to diligently pursue his clients' cases; accepted fees from clients without performing legal work; failed to refund unearned fees; failed to keep retainers
separate from his own funds, and failed to respond to the OPC's requests for information.
ADMONITION
On March 27, 2003, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the
Ethics and Discipline Committee for violation of Rules 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation) and 8.4(a) and (d) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
The attorney was retained to represent a company in a collection matter. The attorney withdrew from representation a little over a week before a hearing on a summary
judgment motion that the attorney had filed for the company. The attorney did not seek a continuance of the hearing. The attorney did not justify the late date of withdrawal.
ADMONITION
On March 27, 2003, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee for violation of Rules 1.5(b) (Fees) and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the
Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
An attorney was retained to represent a client in a divorce matter. The attorney failed to communicate the basis for calculating fees
when fees exceeded $750. The attorney recalculated fees to bill retroactively on an hourly basis without explaining this in advance to the client.
PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On
March 31, 2003, Ned P. Siegfried was publicly reprimanded by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee for violation of Rules 1.7(b) (Conflict of Interest-General Rule), 1.8(e)
(Conflict of Interest-Prohibited Transactions), 1.8(j) (Conflict of Interest-Prohibited Transactions), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
While representing four clients, Mr. Siegfried provided financial assistance in the form of cash advances and paying personal and family expenses, in anticipation of recovering damages in
personal injury claims or lawsuits. In one of the cases Mr. Siegfried provided an amount of financial assistance so great as to create a proprietary interest in the matter of the
litigation and so great as to materially limit the representation of the client by his own interests.
PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On March 25, 2003, the Honorable J. Dennis
Frederick, Third Judicial District Court, entered an Order of Discipline: Reprimand, reprimanding Timothy Miguel Willardson, for violation of Rules 3.3(a)(1) (Candor Toward the Tribunal)
and 8.4(a) and (d) (Misconduct), Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
Mr. Willardson was retained to represent a client in a lawsuit alleging slander and intentional
interference with business relations. During representation of his client, Mr. Willardson made three misrepresentations of fact before the District Court although he had access to
information which refuted his representations before he instituted an action. The Supreme Court further found that his actions had violated Rule 11 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.
Aggravating factors include: substantial experience in the practice of law.
Mitigating factors include: absence of prior record of discipline and restitution.
|
