|
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 over-charged, 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 ConductÕs
(“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 of 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 CourtÕs Order of Suspension is
therefore March 19, 2002.
In summary:
Mr. Gleave had three client Bar complaints, where the Court found that Mr. Gleave violated 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) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. 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.
|
