|
RESIGNATION PENDING DISCIPLINE
On March 29, 2001, the Honorable Richard C. Howe, Chief Justice, Utah Supreme Court, executed an Order Accepting Resignation Pending Discipline in
the matter of D. John Musselman.
On October 2, 1997, the Fourth Judicial District Court entered an Order of Suspension and Probation suspending Musselman from the practice of law for two years. All but four months of the
suspension were stayed and Musselman was placed on probation for a period of twenty months. The Order of Suspension and Probation provided that if Musselman's probation were revoked, he
would be required to serve the entire two years of the suspension.
Musselman violated a term of his probation and the Office of Professional Conduct (ÒOPCÓ) filed a motion to revoke his probation. A hearing was held on the OPC's motion and on May 14,
1999, the Court signed an Order suspending Musselman from the practice of law for two years and ordering Musselman to comply with Rule 26, Rules of Lawyer Discipline and Disability
(ÒRLDDÓ). Pursuant to Rule 26(a), RLDD, Musselman was given a thirty-day period to wind up his law practice.
Musselman failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 26(b), RLDD, and continued to practice law following his thirty-day wind-up period.
In addition, three informal complaints against Musselman were reviewed by Screening Panels of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court, and in each case the Panel
found that probable cause existed for public discipline against Musselman.
While suspended from the practice of law, Musselman received a settlement check on behalf of a client for a personal injury matter settled after the thirty-day wind-up period. Musselman
deposited the check into his personal bank account and disbursed the settlement funds to the client by personal check. The bank did not initially honor the check, but when presented a
second time for payment, the funds were paid to the client.
The OPC filed a motion for order to show cause why Musselman should not be held in contempt for violating the Court's order of May 14, 1999. Musselman then filed his petition for
resignation with discipline pending, which the Supreme Court accepted.
Aggravating factors include: prior discipline.
SUSPENSION
On June 1, 2001, the Honorable Anthony M. Schofield, Fourth Judicial District Court, entered an Order of Discipline by Consent suspending Earl B. Taylor from the
practice of law for three months for violation of Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.5 (Fees), 5.5 (Unauthorized Practice of Law), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and
Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(c) and (d) (Misconduct), of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
While administratively suspended from the practice of law for failure to pay his annual Bar licensing fees, Taylor filed a Complaint and Summons on a client's behalf. The client's case was
later dismissed because Taylor was not authorized to practice law at the time he filed the case. Taylor failed to respond to the Office of Professional Conduct's lawful requests for
information.
While administratively suspended from the practice of law for failure to pay his annual Bar licensing fees, Taylor represented a client in a bankruptcy matter. Taylor was present for the
client's first bankruptcy hearing, but failed to appear at a second hearing. Taylor misinformed the client concerning the second hearing date as a result of which, the client failed to
appear and the bankruptcy was dismissed. Taylor told the client that he would refile the bankruptcy, but failed to do so. Taylor charged the client an excessive fee for the amount of work
performed.
Mitigating factors include: personal or emotional problems and remorse.
Aggravating factors include: prior record of discipline.
SUSPENSION
On June 26, 2001, the Honorable Roger S. Dutson, Second Judicial District Court, entered an Order of Suspension (Stayed) Based on Discipline by Consent suspending
Geoffrey L. Clark from the practice of law for six months for violation of Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.7(b)(Conflict of Interest: General Rule), 7.3 (Direct Contact with
Prospective Clients), and 8.4(a) and (d) (Misconduct), of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The entire six month suspension was stayed.
In representing five clients, Clark failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, did not keep the clients reasonably informed about their matters, and did not promptly comply
with reasonable requests for information.
Clark directly contacted in person or by telephone potential clients for the purpose of soliciting them to become his clients.
While representing a criminal defendant against rape charges, Clark negligently referred before the jury to other sexual behavior by the alleged victim. Clark had not filed a written
motion prior to trial pursuant to Rule 412(c), Utah Rules of Evidence. The State was granted a mistrial based on Clark's references before the jury.
Clark was retained to represent a female client. During the course of the representation, Clark engaged in inappropriate behavior which may have limited his representation of the client.
Mitigating factors include: inexperience in the practice of law and remorse.
ADMONITION
On June 28, 2001, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 5.5 (Unauthorized
Practice of Law) and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The attorney participated in a telephone conference with the court and filed a pleading on an individual's behalf while administratively suspended for failure to comply with mandatory
continuing legal education requirements.
ADMONITION
On July 14, 2001, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rule 8.1(b) (Bar Admission
and Disciplinary Matters) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The attorney failed to respond to the Office of Professional Conduct's lawful requests for information concerning an informal complaint filed against the attorney.
ADMONITION
On July 14, 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(a) (Communication), 1.5(b) (Fees), and 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The attorney was retained to represent a client in a criminal matter. Although the client paid the attorney a retainer fee in excess of $750, the attorney did not have a written fee
agreement with the client. The attorney advised the client that the State had insufficient evidence to proceed with the criminal case and that the attorney would file a Motion to Dismiss
on the client's behalf. Thereafter, the attorney failed to file the Motion to Dismiss and failed to perform any additional work on the client's behalf. The attorney failed to keep the
client reasonably informed about the status of the criminal matter. The attorney failed to respond to the Office of Professional Conduct's lawful requests for information.
ADMONITION
On July 14, 2001, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rule 8.1(b) (Bar Admission
and Disciplinary Matters) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The attorney failed to respond to the Office of Professional Conduct's lawful requests for information concerning an informal complaint filed against the attorney.
ADMONITION
On July 14, 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(a) and (b)and 5.3(b) (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The attorney was retained to represent a client in a workers' compensation matter. Ultimately, the client's case was on appeal and the Court of Appeals set an extended deadline for filing
the client's brief. The court had granted two previous extensions of time in which to file the brief and had advised the client that no further extension of time would be granted. The
deadline passed without a brief being filed on the client's behalf and as a result, the client's appeal was dismissed. During the course of the representation, the attorney failed to keep
the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and failed to inform the client of the deadline for filing the appellate brief. The attorney also failed to inform the client
that the deadline for filing the appellate brief had been missed. The attorney failed to explain the client's matter to the extent reasonably necessary to enable the client to make
informed decisions regarding the representation. The attorney hired a nonlawyer to prepare the brief on the client's behalf. Thereafter, the attorney failed to make reasonable efforts to
ensure that the nonlawyer's conduct in drafting the brief for the client was compatible with the attorney's professional obligations.
ADMONITION
On July 18, 2001, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 3.1 (Meritorious
Claims and Contentions), and 8.4(a) and (d) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The attorney represented a client in a bankruptcy matter and prematurely filed the action without conducting a reasonable investigation as to whether the client was permitted by law to
file at that time. The early bankruptcy filing stopped a court-ordered constable's sale, and the client was able to sell many of the assets to which one of the client's creditors had a
claim.
ADMONITION
On July 18, 2001, 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), 1.5(b) (Fees), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), Rule 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of
Professional Conduct.
The attorney was retained to represent a client in a divorce action. Although it was reasonably foreseeable that total attorney's fees in the client's divorce would exceed $750, the
attorney did not have a written fee agreement with the client. During the course of the representation, the attorney was difficult to contact and failed to keep the client reasonably
informed about the status of the client's divorce, and failed to notify the client of a court hearing. Upon termination of the representation, the attorney failed to return the client's
file as requested. The attorney failed to timely respond to the Office of Professional Conduct's lawful requests for information.
ADMONITION
On August 9, 2001, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rule 1.3 (Diligence) of
the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The attorney was retained to represent a client in a claim against the State of Utah. The attorney failed to send legally sufficient notice of claim to the State of Utah on the client's
behalf. The attorney failed to file a civil complaint on the client's behalf.
Mitigating circumstances include: effort to make restitution; inexperience in the practice of law; and imposition of other penalties or sanctions.
ADMONITION
On August 14, 2001, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 1.1 (Competence),
1.3 (Diligence), and 8.4(d) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The attorney represented a client in a medical malpractice matter. The attorney failed to meet a court-ordered deadline for filing the client's expert witness designation. Although the
court granted the attorney's motion for leave to designate expert witnesses, the court ordered the attorney to pay attorney's fees related to the motion and to pay the other party's
expenses in deposing the designated experts.
Mitigating factors include: imposition of other penalties and sanctions in that the attorney was sanctioned by the trial court and paid those monetary sanctions.
ADMONITION
On August 20, 2001, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 1.8(e) (Conflict of
Interest: Prohibited Transactions) and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The attorney represented a client in connection with a personal injury matter and a wrongful death lawsuit. During the course of the representation, the attorney advanced to the client
funds to cover non-litigation expenses.
|
