|
Commission Highlights
During its regularly scheduled meeting September 27, 2001 which was held at the Brigham Young University Law School, Provo, Utah, the Board of Bar Commissioners received the following
reports and took the actions indicated.
1.Scott Daniels updated the Commission on some legal developments relating to the events of September 11th. The Commission highly endorsed the new pro bono program assisting military
personnel who are in need of immediate and certain legal assistance consisting of powers of attorney, estate planning and the like.
2.Scott Daniels reported that the Supreme Court's Rules Advisory Committee on the Rules of Professional Conduct had completed its report and recommendation as to the Commission's MDP
proposal.
3.Scott Daniels provided background on the UPL developments. A copy of the most recent version of the reinstated UPL bill was distributed.
4.Denise Dragoo reported on the recent Leadership Conference.
5.John Baldwin noted that while a majority of the revisions to the Admissions Rules had already been approved, that the Admissions Committee had made some further changes that needed to be
reviewed by the Commission. The Commission approved the changes as set forth.
6.Scott Daniels reported on the Executive Committee's approval of new Bar admittees.
7.Scott Daniels led the discussion on the Litigation Section's request to contribute the interest accrued on the section's funds to the "and Justice for all" project.
8.The Commission approved the idea to create a Senior Lawyer Section of the Bar.
9.Scott Daniels announced that he had chosen C. Dane Nolan to serve on the Commission's Executive Committee.
10.Nanci Snow Bockelie reported on Senator Spencer's recommendations to have complainants post bonds in order to file attorney discipline complaints and shortening the current four-year
statute of limitations on filing complaints.
11.John Baldwin led the discussion of the Budget and Finance Committee's review of the audit. He distributed Deloitte & Touche's annual audit. The Commission approved renewing the
audit contract with Deloitte & Touche.
12.Debra Moore reported on the most recent meeting of the Judicial Council. She noted that Judge Hilder has replaced Judge Stirba on the Council.
13.Minutes of June 9th, 2001 Pack Creek Ranch Special Commission meeting and the minutes of August 24, 2001 Commission meeting were approved.
A full text of minutes of this and other meetings of the Bar Commission is available for inspection at the office of the Executive Director.
**********
Notice of Petition for Readmission to the Utah State Bar by Edward T. Wells
Pursuant to Rule 25(d), Rules of Lawyer Discipline and Disability, the Utah State Bar’s Office of Professional Conduct hereby publishes notice of a Petition for Readmission
(“Petition”) filed by Edward T. Wells in In re Wells, Third District Court, Civil No. 970901805. Any individuals wishing to oppose or concur with the Petition are requested to do
so within thirty days of the date of this publication by filing notice with the District Court.
**********
2002 Mid-Year Convention Awards
The Board of Bar Commissioners is seeking applications for two Bar awards to be given at the 2002 Mid-Year Convention. These awards honor publicly those whose professionalism,
public service, and personal dedication have significantly enhanced the administration of justice, the delivery of legal services, and the improvement of the profession. Award
applications must be submitted in writing to Maud Thurman, Executive Secretary, 645 South 200 East, Suite 310, Salt Lake City, UT 84111, no later than Friday, January 18, 2002.
1. Dorathy Merrill Brothers Award - For the Advancement of Women in the Legal Profession.
2. Raymond S. Uno Award
- For the Advancement of Minorities in the Legal Profession.
**********
Discipline Corner
ADMONITION
On August 17, 2001, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4
(Communication), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The attorney represented a client in post divorce proceedings. The client's former spouse had initiated proceedings before an out-of-state court to modify the current parenting
plan. The attorney contacted the opposing party and opposing counsel in an attempt to negotiate a settlement. Opposing counsel sent the attorney a proposed plan with a request for the
client's response. The attorney did not respond and the opposing counsel sent a second request for response. Thereafter, opposing counsel sent via facsimile to the attorney a courtesy
copy of a motion hearing notice along with a motion and declaration of default. The notice informed the attorney that a default hearing was set. The attorney did not review the proposed
parenting plan with the client until several days before the default hearing. After the meeting, the attorney informed the client that the attorney would draft the proposed changes to the
parenting plan and send them to opposing counsel. The attorney did not send the proposed changes to opposing counsel until a day after the court had entered a default judgment adopting
the opposing party's parenting plan, resulting in a minor adjustment to the parties' rights.
Mitigating factors include: absence of a prior record of discipline and cooperation with the Office of Professional Conduct.
ADMONITION
On August 22, 2001, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rule 1.15 (Safekeeping Property) of
the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Office of Professional Conduct received an overdraft notice regarding the attorney's trust account. The attorney deposited two client checks into the trust account and,
without waiting for the checks to clear, issued checks from the trust account. One of the deposited checks was returned by the bank due to insufficient fund in the client's account,
causing the attorney's trust account to be overdrawn.
**********
Utah State Bar Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee
Opinion No. 01-07
Issue: Is it a violation of the ethical rules for an attorney or law firm to use trade names such as "Legal Center for the Wrongfully Accused" or "Legal
Center for Victims of Domestic Violence" in selected court pleadings?
Opinion: It is not a violation of the ethical rules for an attorney or law firm to use trade names such as "Legal Center for the Wrongfully Accused" or
"Legal Center for Victims of Domestic Violence" so long as the organization represents clients who claim to be in the indicated categories and provided the name is uniformly
used for all such representation. Selective use of such trade names for some clients in the indicated categories but not others would violate Utah Rule of Professional Conduct 7.1(a).
|
