|
SUSPENSION
On July 15, 2002, the Honorable Anthony B. Quinn, Third Judicial District Court, entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of Suspension suspending Kent
L. Christiansen from the practice of law for three months for violation of Rules 1.7 (Conflict of Interest: General Rule), 1.8 (Conflict of Interest: Prohibited Transactions), 1.16(a)
(Declining or Terminating Representation), 4.1(a) (Truthfulness in Statements to Others), and 8.4(a) and (c) (Misconduct), Rules of Professional Conduct. The Order of Suspension's
effective date is August 15, 2002.
In summary:
Mr. Christiansen represented a client in a divorce case. The client was also his secretary with whom he was romantically involved.
Mr. Christiansen was willing to represent her and told her there would be no charge. Mr. Christiansen failed to discuss the possible risks and disadvantages of representing his client
during their romantic relationship. Mr. Christiansen's interests may have been limited because he could not give his client impartial advice on the possibility of reconciliation and legal
issues presented by cohabitation. Mr. Christiansen presented a promissory note and trust deed to his client to evidence a loan from him to the client, which the client signed because of
her faith and trust in Mr. Christiansen due to their romantic relationship. Mr. Christiansen did not handle the promissory note and trust deed transaction in a manner to ensure that the
client understood the transaction and had a reasonable opportunity to seek independent counsel. Mr. Christiansen also denied to opposing counsel in the divorce matter that he was
romantically involved with his client.
Mitigating factors include: absence of prior record of discipline; good character and reputation (outside of the events that came forward in
this case); and substantial experience in the practice of law.
Aggravating factors include: multiple offenses; vulnerability of victim (vulnerability is created as a result of the
relationship between the lawyer and the client).
REPRIMAND
On July 10, 2002, the Honorable Tyrone Medley, Third Judicial District Court, entered an Order of Discipline:
Reprimand reprimanding David R. King for violation of Rules 1.2(a) (Scope of Representation), 1.4(a) (Communication), 1.4(b) (Communication), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of
Professional Conduct.
In summary:
Mr. King was retained to represent a client in connection with an interpleader filed in the District Court. Mr. King obtained a Certificate of
Default on his client's behalf, but did not resist having it set aside, although it was his client's desire to do so. Mr. King failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the
status of his case and to promptly comply with his requests for information. Mr. King failed to explain his client's matter to the extent reasonably necessary to enable his client to make
informed decisions regarding the representation.
Mitigating factors include: no record of prior discipline; did not have a dishonest or selfish motive; cooperative attitude toward
the disciplinary proceedings.
Aggravating factors include: substantial experience in the practice of law.
ADMONITION
On July 11, 2002, an attorney was admonished
by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 1.7(b) (Conflict of Interest: General Rule) and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of
Professional Conduct.
In summary:
The attorney was retained to represent a client against criminal charges. The attorney simultaneously represented a client's sibling in an
unrelated criminal matter. The attorney continued to simultaneously represent the client and the client's sibling after the client's sibling had been called to testify against the client.
Mitigating factors include: cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings.
ADMONITION
On July 18, 2002, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the
Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 5.5(b) (Unauthorized Practice of Law) and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
The attorney was retained to represent a client against criminal charges. The initial interview was conducted by the attorney's office manager, outside of the attorney's
presence. All contact with the client thereafter was with the office manager and not with the attorney.
ADMONITION
On July 18, 2002, an attorney was admonished by the
Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 1.8(h) (Conflict of Interest: Prohibited Transactions), 5.5(b) (Unauthorized Practice of
Law), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct).
In summary:
The attorney was retained to represent a client in a DUI matter. The client signed a retainer agreement which stated that the client
could not bring any type of formal or informal complaint against the attorney for anything the client found unsatisfactory. The retainer agreement was drafted by the attorney's office
manager and was not reviewed or signed by the attorney. The initial interview was conducted by the attorney's office manager, outside of the attorney's presence. The attorney's office
manager wrote and signed a letter on the attorney's letterhead, requesting a hearing on behalf of the client.
ADMONITION
On July 18, 2002, an attorney was admonished by
the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 1.8(h) (Conflict of Interest: Prohibited Transactions), 5.5(b) (Unauthorized Practice of
Law), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
The attorney was retained to represent a client against criminal charges. The client signed a
retainer agreement which stated that the client could not bring any type of formal or informal complaint against the attorney for anything the client found unsatisfactory. The retainer
agreement was drafted by the attorney's office manager and was not reviewed or signed by the attorney. The initial interview was conducted by the attorney's office manager, outside of the
attorney's presence.
ADMONITION
On July 19, 2002, 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), 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
The
attorney was retained to represent a client in a child custody matter. The attorney failed to attend scheduled court hearings on behalf of the client. The attorney failed to provide
sufficient information to the client about the attorney's proposed stipulation and left the client to make the decision. The attorney failed to properly terminate representation of the
client, forcing the court to order the attorney's appearance or submission of a withdrawal of counsel.
ADMONITION
On July 22, 2002, 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), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), and 8.4(a)
(Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
The attorney was retained to represent a client in a divorce matter. The client attempted to contact the attorney,
but the attorney did not return the client's telephone calls. The client requested his file from the attorney. The attorney was unable to locate the file. The attorney referred the client
to the court to obtain a copy of the file.
ADMONITION
On July 22, 2002, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme
Court for violation of Rules 1.4 (Communication), 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
The
attorney was retained to represent a client in a personal injury matter and subsequent to that, a collection action brought against the client by one of the medical providers that had not
been paid. The case settled. The client received a portion of the settlement and a portion was to be paid to the medical bills. The attorney did not complete the collection case. The
attorney told the client the attorney was giving up the practice of law and would send the client's records to the client. The client did not receive any records, including evidence that
the medical bills had been paid.
ADMONITION
On July 30, 2002, 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), 1.15(b) (Safekeeping Property), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional
Conduct.
In summary:
The attorney was retained to represent a client in a discrimination action. The client received some of the settlement money but believed that the amount
was less than what should have been received. The client requested that the attorney send the balance of what was owed, but the attorney failed to do so. The attorney failed to respond to
the client's requests for information. The attorney failed to cooperate with the Office of Professional Conduct's investigation of the matter.
ADMONITION
On July 30,
2002, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rules 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters) and
8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
The Office of Professional Conduct (ÒOPCÓ) received a complaint from a client of an attorney. The OPC
forwarded the complaint to the attorney requesting a written response. The attorney's relative sent a letter to the OPC stating that the attorney was unable to respond because of physical
incapacity. The letter did not address the complaint against the attorney. The OPC sent a letter to the relative requesting a response to the complaint. The attorney sent a letter to the
OPC that did not address the client's complaint. The OPC sent two other reminders to the attorney and a Notice of Informal Complaint, but did not receive a written response to the
complaint.
ADMONITION
On August 16, 2002, an attorney was admonished by the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court for violation of Rule
1.9(a) (Conflict of Interest: Former Client) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
The attorney was retained to represent a client relative to an investigation of
allegations of misrepresentations in the client's transfer of stock. The client informed the attorney that stock was transferred to an individual. The client later sued that individual to
recover the same stock. The attorney began representing that individual against his former client, without obtaining a waiver of conflict of interest. The attorney thus represented a
client against a former client in a matter that was substantially factually related to the matter in which the attorney represented the former client and the former client did not consent
to waive the conflict of interest.
|
