|
PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On September 24, 2003, Blaine P. McBride was publicly reprimanded by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of
Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(b) (Communication), and 8.4(a) (Communication) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
Mr. McBride was retained to assist a client to
establish paternity and seek visitation with the client's child. Opposing counsel stalled negotiation and other discussions and eventually claimed that the file had been misplaced, and
Mr. McBride believed that time should have been given for opposing counsel to find the file. After Mr. McBride encountered communication difficulties with opposing counsel for one year,
Mr. McBride failed to either pursue mediation ordered by the court, or to set the matter for a scheduling conference with the court to pursue the unresolved issues. Mr. McBride also
failed to fully explain the options available to his client.
Mitigating factors include: absence of dishonest or selfish motive and remorse.
Aggravating factors include: prior record of discipline.
INTERIM SUSPENSION
On September 25, 2003, the Honorable L. A. Dever, Third Judicial District Court, entered a
Ruling on Motion for Interim Suspension Pursuant to Rule 19, placing E. Keith Howick on interim suspension.
In summary:
Mr. Howick was convicted of three federal offenses that directly reflect on his honesty and fitness as a lawyer.
ADMONITION
On September 26, 2003, an attorney was
admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 8.2(a) (Judicial Officials) and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of
Professional Conduct.
In summary:
An attorney was retained to represent the defendants in a civil case. After the case concluded, the attorney filed a motion to disqualify the
judge presiding over the case. The attorney made public statements about the judge's qualifications and integrity with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of those statements.
ADMONITION
On September 26, 2003, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 1.2(a)
(Scope of Representation), 1.3 (Diligence), and 1.4(a) (Communication) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
An attorney was retained to prepare living trusts, a
quit claim deed for real property, and to place the property in the trusts for the clients. The clients became aware that one of their properties had not been included, and one they did
not own had been included. The attorney represented to the clients that the attorney would provide continuing support, but did not fulfill the commitment when the attorney ceased
practicing law.
PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On September 29, 2003, William C. Halls was publicly reprimanded by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme
Court for violation of Rule 8.4(c) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
Mr. Halls served as general counsel and manager of a company. The company
intended to go public through merger with a publicly traded company. Financial information was provided to investors. Mr. Halls was aware that financial information was provided and it
was ultimately discovered that the financial information was inaccurate. The investors filed a civil lawsuit. Additionally, discovery revealed that the principal supporter in the company
had told Mr. Halls that the company was in default under significant obligations. Mr. Halls wrote to the investor to request forbearance of any financial proceeding and a withdrawal of a
note of default so he could search out and obtain new investors. Thus, the financial information provided to the publicly traded company did not adequately disclose the money owed to the
principal supporter. A summary judgment was obtained against Mr. Halls by the investors based upon the strict liability imposed on a manager by the Utah Securities Act.
ADMONITION
On September 29, 2003, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 1.4(a)
(Communication) and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
An attorney was retained to obtain dissolution of the client's marriage. The attorney's
contract with the client stated no services would be provided until the quoted fee was paid. Two months later, the attorney reviewed the client file and finding no record of the client
having paid a retainer, believed no payment had been received. At that time, the attorney was not aware that an employee was embezzling from the law firm. Believing no fees had been
received, the attorney took no further action on behalf of the client, but did not close the file. A year later, the attorney reviewed the client file and attempted, unsuccessfully, to
locate the client. The client and the client's spouse believed they were divorced and each remarried. When the attorney finally located the client, the attorney learned of the second
marriages and immediately took the initial steps to obtain dissolution of the first marriage. The client retained new counsel to complete this process.
ADMONITION
On
September 29, 2003, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 1.5(a) and (b) (Fees), 1.15(b)
(Safekeeping Property), and 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
An attorney was retained to represent a client in
a criminal case. The attorney did not provide a written fee agreement to the client to explain the flat fee agreement. Approximately two years later, the client requested a copy of the
file, but was told that the file had been shredded. The client requested an itemized statement from the attorney, but it has never been provided.
PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On
October 2, 2003, E. Kent Winward was publicly reprimanded by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) and
(b) (Communication), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
Mr. Winward was retained to file a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. The clients had
purchased two used cars prior to the bankruptcy filing and Mr. Winward told his clients a redemption of the vehicles would not affect their credit. He had the clients sign a document
titled Òredemption agreementÓ. The clients thought this was the agreement with the creditor but it was an agreement with Mr. Winward concerning payment for his services related to the
redemption agreement. After the meeting of creditors, the clients telephoned Mr. Winward's office, spoke with his secretary concerning the amounts to offer for redemption and assumed Mr.
Winward was handling the redemption. The clients made repairs to the vehicles in the amount of $5,188. Four months later, the creditor repossessed the clients' vehicles. Mr. Winward
assumed the clients were no longer interested in the redemption and did nothing further in that regard. Mr. Winward did not follow up with the clients. After the repossessions, the
clients attempted to contact Mr. Winward several times, but he did not return their calls.
PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On October 2, 2003, E. Kent Winward was publicly reprimanded
by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(b) (Communication), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of
Professional Conduct.
In summary:
Mr. Winward filed a chapter 13 bankruptcy petition primarily to stop a foreclosure on the clients' residence. The clients' mortgagee filed a
motion for relief from stay. The clients stopped making chapter 13 plan payments and the case was dismissed. When the case was dismissed, the mortgagee resumed foreclosure. The clients
went to Mr. Winward to file a second chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. After meeting with Mr. Winward's office, the clients, though unable to pay the filing fee for several days, believed
their petition would be filed the next day. Mr. Winward decided he would not file the petition until the clients delivered to him the filing fee but did not inform the clients of this
decision. The mortgagee conducted the foreclosure sale, after which Mr. Winward's office filed the clients' second chapter 13 petition, which was no longer necessary.
ADMONITION
On October 2, 2003, 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) and 8.4(a)
(Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
The attorney filed three chapter 13 bankruptcy petitions on behalf of the client to forestall foreclosure on a
residential loan. Each case was dismissed prior to plan confirmation. In the third case, the mortgagee on the residence persuaded the bankruptcy court to dismiss the case with prejudice
on the basis that the client's three filings had been made in bad faith. The attorney did not appear for the hearing which resulted in the order of dismissal with prejudice, but does
appear on the certificate of service for the order. The attorney did not at that time have any record keeping system to track client cases which were dismissed with prejudice. The
attorney filed a fourth chapter 13 bankruptcy on behalf of the client, in violation of the bankruptcy court order. The mortgagee filed a Motion to Dismiss Void Ab Initio and for
Sanctions. The attorney did not attend the hearing on this motion. The court granted the motion and sanctioned the attorney with an order to pay the mortgagee's attorney fees and lost
interest.
|
