SANFORD J. EDELMAN Bar No ; File No By Supreme Court Judgment and Order

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "SANFORD J. EDELMAN Bar No. 004497; File No. 00-0216. By Supreme Court Judgment and Order"

Transcription

1 SANCTIONED ATTORNEYS KENNETH P. BEMIS Bar No ; File Nos and dated May 7, 2002, Kenneth P. Bemis, 637 North 3rd Ave., Suite 5, Phoenix, AZ 85003, was censured by consent for violation of his duties and obligations as a lawyer. Mr. Bemis was also placed on one-year probation including participation in the LOMAP program. Mr. Bemis was also ordered to pay costs and expenses incurred by the State Bar in the amount of $600, together with interest at the legal rate, in this matter. In Count One, Mr. Bemis represented a client in a domestic relations matter. On Feb. 21, 1995, Mr. Bemis was personally sanctioned $500 by the court for filing an improper motion to modify a child support order. This was ultimately reduced to a judgment. Mr. Bemis was later assessed an additional $200. Mr. Bemis thereafter failed to appear at a judgment debtor s examination and has failed to satisfy either sanction. In Count Two, Mr. Bemis was retained by a client to bring an action against Bank of America as a result of a judgment improperly reported against her. Mr. Bemis entered into a partial hourly fee/contingency fee agreement with the client, but this was not reduced to writing. Mr. Bemis initially failed to diligently represent the client but was ultimately successful in obtaining a fair settlement offer. In regard to Count Three, Mr. Bemis had previously been censured on July 18, There were two aggravating factors found Lawyer Sanctions, Section 9.22: (a) prior disciplinary offenses and (i) substantial experience in the practice of law. There were two mitigating factors found pursuant to Section 9.32 of the ABA Standards: (b) absence of dishonest or selfish motive and (e) cooperative attitude toward the proceedings. Mr. Bemis conduct violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., particularly ER 1.3, ER 1.5, ER 3.1, ER 3.4, and ER 8.4 and Rule 51(e) and (k), ARIZ.R.S.CT. GARY C. BROWN Bar No ; File Nos , , , , , , , , , , and dated April 25, 2002, Gary C. Brown, 1739 E. Broadway, #1-401, Tempe, AZ 85282, was disbarred for conduct in violation of his duties and obligations as a lawyer. Mr. Brown was ordered to reimburse the Client Protection Fund for any claims paid by the Fund up to the maximum of $100,000. Mr. Brown was ordered to pay costs and expenses incurred by the State Bar in the sum of $5,292, together with interest at the legal rate, in this matter. The Commission placed Mr. Brown on temporary disability inactive status on Oct. 20, He was removed from this status and returned to active status on April 8, In addition, Mr. Brown was summarily suspended for nonpayment of dues on Sept. 18, 2000, and for noncompliance with Mandatory Continuing Legal Education on May 18, Nine of the twelve counts involve the unauthorized practice of law involving 30 known cases and failing to obey orders or to notify clients. In five of the nine counts, Mr. Brown made misrepresentations about his status and he failed to respond to a motion to dismiss in one of the five matters. In addition, he failed to diligently act as an arbitrator and obey court orders in a matter. Furthermore, he filed nine matters without the required supporting documents and/or fees, resulting in dismissal. He also failed to timely appeal an arbitration award and respond to a motion to dismiss and communicate with his clients in another matter. Finally, Mr. Brown failed to respond or cooperate with the State Bar s investigation in these matters. There were seven aggravating factors Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Section 9.22: (a) prior disciplinary offenses, (b) dishonest or selfish motive, (c) pattern of misconduct, (d) multiple offenses, (e) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, (g) refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct and (i) substantial experience in the practice of law. There were no mitigating factors found pursuant to Section 9.32 of the ABA Standards. Mr. Brown s conduct violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., particularly ER 1.1, ER 1.2, ER 1.3, ER 1.4, ER 3.3(a)(1), ER 3.4(c), ER 5.5, ER 5.5(a), ER 5.5(b), ER 8.1(b) and ER 8.4(b), (c) and (d) and Rule 51(e), (f) (h), (i) and (k) and Rule 63, ARIZ.R.S.CT. SANFORD J. EDELMAN Bar No ; File No dated Aug. 7, 2002, Sanford J. Edelman, 100 Colonia De Salud, Suite 103-D, Sierra Vista, AZ 85635, was suspended for 30 days. Upon reinstatement, Mr. Edelman will be placed on two years probation, complete the Trust Account Ethics Enhancement Program and participate in a LOMAP trust account audit. Mr. Edelman was also ordered to pay costs and expenses incurred by the State Bar in the amount of $3, Mr. Edelman was in partnership with David Martin in Lakeside Pinetop and was still in partnership when Mr. Edelman moved to Tucson. Mr. Edelman was responsible for reconciling the monthly trust account statements and failed to timely reconcile the account several times. When Mr. Edelman moved to Tucson, there were no discussions regarding who was to reconcile the trust account, and Mr. Edelman assumed that Mr. Martin would do so, which was not the case. In one case, Mr. Edelman made partial disbursements to two clients and failed to record those disbursements on their client ledger cards, which ultimately resulted in overpayments to the clients from other clients funds. In another matter, Mr. Edelman received $99,900 from the State Guaranty Fund for an automobile accident claim for a client and $15,000 was held in the firm s trust account for possible reimbursement to the client s insurance company. In June 1999 Mr. Edelman was notified that the insurance company would not pursue repayment, but Mr. Edelman failed to convey this information to the clients right away. In September 1999 Mr. Edelman directed Mr. Martin to disburse the funds to the clients, but there were insufficient funds in the trust account to do so. In March 2000, the clients received $4, of the $10,000 owed to them. In May 2000, Mr. Edelman used personal funds to cover the remaining $5, In another case, Mr. Edelman directed that $1,000 be advanced to a client when there was no money in the trust account for that client. In another matter, Mr. Edelman was aware that $5,000 of client funds were removed from the client trust account before the funds were earned. There was one aggravating factors found Lawyer Sanctions, Section 9.22: (c) pattern of misconduct. There were five mitigating factor found pursuant to Section 9.32 of the ABA Standards: (a) absence of a prior disciplinary record, (b) absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, (d) timely good faith effort to make restitution or to rectify consequences of misconduct, (e) full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings and (l) remorse. Mr. Edelman s conduct violated Rule MARCH 2003 ARIZONA ATTORNEY 49

2 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., particularly ER 1.3, ER 1.4, ER 1.15 and Rule 43(d), guidelines 1(a) and 2(e), ARIZ.R.S.CT. FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO On Dec. 3, 2002, Sanford J. Edelman, Attorney Registration No , last known business address in Tucson, AZ, was suspended from the practice of law in the state of Ohio for 30 days, with the suspension stayed, and placed on probation for two years. Sanford J. Edelman will not be permitted to apply for termination of probation in the state of Ohio until such time as his probation is terminated in the state of Arizona. See the Ohio Supreme Court s entry in Disciplinary Counsel v. Edelman, 97 Ohio St. 3d 1222, 2002 Ohio 6773, for additional information. LATONYA R. HARRISON Bar No ; File Nos , , , , , , , , and dated July 3, 2002, Latonya R. Harrison, 4300 N. Miller Road, Suite 251, Scottsdale, AZ 85251, was disbarred for violation of her duties and obligations as a lawyer. Ms. Harrison was ordered to pay restitution to four clients in the total amount of $4,550 and was ordered to reimburse the Client Protection Fund for any claims paid by the Fund up to the maximum amount of $100,000. Ms. Harrison was also ordered to pay costs and expenses incurred by the State Bar in the amount of $2,339.30, together with interest at the legal rate. In Count One, on Aug. 30, 2000, Ms. Harrison wrote a check to the State Bar to pay for CLE materials or seminars. The check was drawn on her IOLTA trust account. By letter dated Sept. 19, 2000, Ms. Harrison was notified of the allegations contained in this count and her duty to respond pursuant to Rule 51. Ms. Harrison initially failed to respond but later requested an extension of time until Oct. 27, 2000, to respond to the State Bar s allegations. Ms. Harrison did not provide a response to the State Bar. By letter dated Jan. 3, 2001, Ms. Harrison was again informed of the allegations and her duty to respond. By fax dated Jan. 16, 2001, Ms. Harrison replied stating she had attempted to pay for CLE materials with cash, but the Bar would not accept cash so she paid with the only check in her possession. She further stated that her trust account had more than $170 in earned fees at that time. By letter dated Jan. 18, 2001, bar counsel requested that Ms. Harrison provide financial records documenting her response to the State Bar. Ms. Harrison failed to respond to this request for information. In Count Two, by order of the Supreme Court dated June 14, 2000, Ms. Harrison was summarily suspended from the practice of law for failure to comply with Mandatory Continuing Legal Education requirements. Ms. Harrison appeared in court as attorney for a client on June 19, 2000, and July 17, 2000, prior to her reinstatement on Oct. 6, By letters dated Oct. 26, 2000, and Nov. 22, 2000, the State Bar notified Ms. Harrison of the allegations in this count and a response was requested. Ms. Harrison failed to respond to either letter. In Count Three on Nov. 8, 2000, Bank One notified the State Bar that Ms. Harrison s trust account was overdrawn in the amount of $ By letters dated Nov. 17, 2000, and Dec. 15, 2000, Ms. Harrison was notified by the State Bar of these allegations and requested to respond. Ms. Harrison failed to respond to either letter. In Count Four, a client retained Ms. Harrison on July 21, 2000, to force sale of a home the client owned with another individual. The client paid Ms. Harrison a nonrefundable fee of $1,000. Ms. Harrison indicated that a legal letter would be sent to the co-owner of the home demanding sale, and that the matter should be in court by September. When the client had heard nothing from Ms. Harrison by the end of September 2000, she called Ms. Harrison approximately 15 times before receiving a return call informing her that Ms. Harrison was very busy but that she would get the letter out soon. After two weeks, the client heard nothing and tried to contact Ms. Harrison by calling on each business day. There was no response to her calls. In November 2000, Ms. Harrison s brother, who is also a member of the State Bar, called the client to say Ms. Harrison was not in town and that she would return the call when she came back. Again the client received no response. At the end of November 2000, the client visited Ms. Harrison s office to confront her and demand action. Ms Harrison told the client she had lost her clerk and that she and her brother were doing all the office work, but that the letter would go out before Christmas. Again, there was no further contact. By letters dated Jan. 5, 2001, and Jan. 31, 2001, Ms. Harrison was notified by the State Bar of these allegations and requested to respond. Ms. Harrison failed to respond to either letter. In Count Five, a client retained Ms. Harrison on Jan. 6, 2000, to institute divorce proceedings on her behalf. The client paid Ms. Harrison a fee of $700. Ms. Harrison did prepare documents for the client; however, the last written correspondence from Ms. Harrison to the client was dated Mar. 3, Ms. Harrison failed to maintain communication with the client even though the client and the client s mother made numerous unsuccessful attempts to contact Ms. Harrison. At one point, the client s mother left a message indicating that she intended to contact the State Bar. Ms. Harrison s brother called the mother and told her that Ms. Harrison was out of town, but would return the call when she returned. Ms. Harrison never contacted the client or the client s mother. By letters dated Jan. 8, 2001, and Feb. 2, 2001, Ms. Harrison was notified by the State Bar of these allegations and requested to respond. Ms. Harrison failed to respond to either letter. In Count Six, the client met with Ms. Harrison on July 20, 2000, on behalf of a business organization to determine if the client could conclude a real estate transaction without incurring further legal liability. At the meeting, the client provided documentation and paid Ms. Harrison a fee. On Sept. 25, 2000, Ms. Harrison called the client requesting more documents, which the client provided that day. Ms. Harrison told the client that the opinion would be prepared within two to three weeks. From the latter part of October until mid-december 2000, the client attempted to contact Ms. Harrison by phone and in person. The first attempts were unsuccessful; however, on Dec. 6, 2000, Ms. Harrison produced the promised opinion via fax but never provided the client with an original copy. By letters dated Jan. 26, 2001, and Feb. 22, 2001, Ms. Harrison was notified by the State Bar of these allegations and requested to respond. Ms. Harrison failed to respond to either letter. In Count Seven, Ms. Harrison was hired by a client in a personal injury matter. By letter dated Feb. 5, 2001, the client contacted the State Bar complaining that Ms. Harrison failed to return her phone calls, that her case was supposed to have gone to trial in September 2000 and that Ms. Harrison never kept her updated. By letters dated Mar. 8, 2001, and April 5, 2001, Ms. Harrison was notified by the State Bar of these allegations and requested to respond. Ms. Harrison failed to respond to either letter. By letter dated April 24, 2001, the client wrote the State Bar stating that on April 9, Ms. Harrison called the client to state that the case was going to trial on April The next day, Ms. Harrison called the client to say that a physician witness was unavailable to testify so the parties were attempting to settle the matter. The settlement offers were low 50 ARIZONA ATTORNEY MARCH 2003

3 in comparison to the costs incurred by the client. Ms. Harrison again failed to respond to the State Bar s inquiry. In Count Eight, a client hired Ms. Harrison to represent her in a dissolution action. The client paid Ms. Harrison $500 of the $1,000 retainer and gave Ms. Harrison divorce papers. According to the client, Ms. Harrison was supposed to contact the client by the end of the week. After a month of unsuccessfully trying to contact Ms. Harrison, the client wrote a letter firing her and requesting a refund of her $500. By letters dated Feb. 15, 2001, and Mar. 15, 2001, Ms. Harrison was notified by the State Bar of these allegations and requested to respond. Ms. Harrison failed to respond to either letter. In Count Nine, a client retained Ms. Harrison in July 2000 to represent him in a federal court matter and paid her a $1,500 retainer. Ms. Harrison failed to inform the client of an upcoming deposition, failed to provide documents to the opposing party that had been provided to her by the client, failed to prepare and file a motion to compel, failed to respond to a motion for summary judgment filed by the opposing party that resulted in the motion being granted and failed to inform the client that a summary judgment motion had been filed and granted. The client learned of the summary judgment when he received a copy of the order from the court in March The client s last communication with Ms. Harrison was January By letters dated April 19, 2001, and May 15, 2001, Ms. Harrison was notified by the State Bar of these allegations and requested to respond. Ms. Harrison failed to respond to either letter. In Count Ten, a client retained Ms. Harrison in April 2000 and paid a $1,000 retainer to represent him in a child support matter. Ms. Harrison failed to file a responsive pleading on the client s behalf and on May 17, 2000, a default judgment as to paternity and an order of support was entered against him. The client was also assessed a default fee of $50. Ms. Harrison failed to return client calls or provide him with documents. At one point, Ms. Harrison failed to appear at a court hearing, claiming she had car trouble. The client and his daughter made numerous attempts to contact Ms. Harrison. Upon reaching her, Ms. Harrison suggested her brother take the case for an additional fee of $1,500. By letter dated May 7, 2001, Ms. Harrison was notified by the State Bar of these allegations and requested to respond. Ms. Harrison failed to respond to the letter. There were nine aggravating factors Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Section 9.22: (b) dishonest or selfish motive, (c) pattern of misconduct, (d) multiple offenses, (e) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceedings by intentionally failing to comply with rules and orders of the disciplinary agency, (f) submission of false evidence, false statements or other deceptive practices during the disciplinary process, (g) refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct, (h) vulnerability of victim, (i) substantial experience in the practice of law and (j) indifference to making restitution. There were no mitigating factors found pursuant to Section 9.32 of the ABA Standards. Ms. Harrison s conduct violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., particularly ER 1.1, ER 1.2, ER 1.3, ER 1.4, ER 1.5, ER 1.15, ER 5.5, ER 8.1(b), and ER 8.4(d) and Rules 43, 44 and 51(e), (f), (h) and (i), ARIZ.R.S.CT. JULIA A. LEON Bar No ; File Nos , , , , , , and dated April 25, 2002, Julia A. Leon, 8750 E. Speedway, Suite 260, Tucson, AZ 85710, was disbarred for conduct in violation of her duties and obligations as a lawyer. Two separate disciplinary proceedings were consolidated by the Disciplinary Commission. Ms. Leon was ordered to pay restitution to seven client totaling $19, and to reimburse the Client Protection Fund for any and all claims paid out by the Fund up to $100,000. Ms. Leon was ordered to pay costs and expenses incurred by the State Bar in the sum of $2,521.30, together with interest at the legal rate, in this matter. In the first matter, Ms. Leon was retained to represent a client in a wrongful termination case in July The client gave Ms. Leon a $1,500 retainer with no written fee agreement, and Ms. Leon failed to deposit the retainer in her trust account. Ms. Leon communicated with the client for approximately two weeks and then the client was unable to contact Ms. Leon as she failed to respond to the client s telephone calls or letters. The client requested a refund by written letter in October 1999 and received no response. Ms. Leon also failed to comply with the State Bar s inquiries regarding this matter. In the second matter, Ms. Leon was retained by a client in July 1999 to represent the client in a business dispute, giving Ms. Leon a retainer of $675. One week later the client resolved the dispute on her own. The client then requested that Ms. Leon provide her with a copy of the letter to be sent to the business partner and refund $600. The client heard nothing further from Ms. Leon, and Ms. Leon also failed to comply with the State Bar s request for information regarding this matter. In the third matter, a client retained Ms. Leon to represent him in a wrongful termination matter. Ms. Leon was paid a retainer of $575 for the representation but did virtually no work. Ms. Leon failed to communicate with the client or to reply to his inquiries. Ms. Leon had been summarily suspended on April 28, 2000, and failed to advise her client of the suspension. Ms. Leon also failed to cooperate with the State Bar regarding the allegations in this matter. In the fourth matter, Ms. Leon represented a client and two of his businesses in litigation matters. In 1999, the client had great difficulty in communicating with Ms. Leon. In March 2000, Ms. Leon sent the client a list of 31 pending cases. In one of the matters, Ms. Leon promised the client funds of $5,324 representing a settlement of one dispute, indicating that the funds would be delivered, but they never were. Ms. Leon indicated that the check was on its way and also that many litigation files were transferred to another attorney when in fact they were never transferred. The client had to hire another attorney to make sure the files were turned over at the end of June A review of the files indicated several other problems, including the fact that although Ms. Leon had represented to the client that the client had won a case, in reality, he had lost the case on summary judgment and an award of attorney s fees of $4,000 had been issued against him. In another case, Ms. Leon filed a complainant and the defendant failed to file an answer and no default was issued and the case was then ultimately dismissed for lack of prosecution. In two other cases, the client had been told that complaints had been filed when in fact they were not. In the fifth matter, Ms. Leon was hired by a client on June 2, 1999, for filing personal bankruptcy. Ms. Leon did not communicate with the client and although it appears that the bankruptcy was filed in August 1999, the client heard nothing from Ms. Leon until the client called in January Ms. Leon informed the client that the court was backed up and over the next six months, although the client repeatedly called Ms. Leon to find out the status of her case, at no time did Ms. Leon advise the client that Ms. Leon had been suspended from the practice of law in April In the sixth matter, Ms. Leon was retained by a client on Nov. 11, 1996, for an employment discrimination case. Although MARCH 2003 ARIZONA ATTORNEY 51

4 Ms. Leon filed suit in the U.S. District Court in March 1997, in April 2000 the client discovered that the case had been dismissed. Ms. Leon had never told the client of the dismissal and when the client called Ms. Leon, Ms. Leon told the client that the case was open and active. Later that same day, the client confirmed that the case had been dismissed and all subsequent attempts to contact Ms. Leon were unsuccessful. In the seventh matter, Ms. Leon was a contract attorney with the Pima County Juvenile Court. Although Ms. Leon was suspended from the practice of law in April 2000, she failed to advise the court and continued to represent clients in juvenile matters. In August 2000, Judge Nanette Warner questioned Ms. Leon about her standing and Ms. Leon expressed surprise, stating that she had paid her dues and that she had never received information from the State Bar regarding her suspension. These were false statements. In the eighth matter, a client retained Respondent to represent him on a number of business matters. Ms. Leon told the client that she filed suit in December 1998 and then the client had little or no contact with her for more than a year. In January 2000, Ms. Leon advised that she had settled the case for $5,300. However, at no time did the client agree to such a settlement. Thereafter Ms. Leon told the client that he could pick up his settlement check at the bank, but no check was waiting for him. Ms. Leon also neglected to collect debts on three other matters. In yet another matter, Ms. Leon failed to appear at a September 2000 trial, and judgment was entered against the client for $3, There were eight aggravating factors Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Section 9.22: (a) prior disciplinary offenses, (c) pattern of misconduct, (d) multiple offenses, (e) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, (h) vulnerability of the victim and (i) substantial experience in the practice of law. There was one mitigating factor found pursuant to Section 9.32 of the ABA Standards: (c) personal or emotional problems. Ms. Leon s conduct violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., particularly ER 1.2, ER 1.3, ER 1.4, ER 1.5, ER 1.15, ER 1.16(d), ER 4.1, ER 5.5, ER 8.1(b), ER 8.4 and Rules 43, 44 and 51(h) and (i), ARIZ.R.S.CT. DAVID J. MARTIN Bar No ; File No dated April 17, 2002, David J. Martin, P.O. Box 808, Lakeside, AZ 85929, was censured for conduct in violation of his duties and obligations as a lawyer. Mr. Martin was placed on probation for one year and ordered to participate in LOMAP and to take the State Bar s Trust Account Ethics Enhancement Program. Mr. Martin was also ordered to pay costs and expenses in the amount of $3, incurred by the State Bar for these proceedings, together with interest at the legal rate from the date of the judgment. Mr. Martin was in partnership with Sanford J. Edelman. Mr. Edelman moved to Tucson in August or September of The partnership remained in effect. Mr. Edelman was expected to and did return to the Pinetop Lakeside office from time to time to take care of partnership business. Each partner was responsible for keeping the client ledgers for the cases he was handling. Most of the trust account activity resulted from Mr. Edelman s personal injury cases. Mr. Martin handled mostly criminal cases and about half of those were indigent defense contract matters. The Hallonquist case was a personal injury case that was handled by Mr. Edelman. On Sept. 15, 1999, while preparing for a scheduled meeting with the clients, Mr. Martin discovered that the trust account had insufficient funds to pay the clients. He also discovered that someone had forged Mr. Edelman s signature on a $5,000 check taken out of order from the trust account checkbook. When Mr. Martin asked Mr. Edelman about this, Mr. Edelman told him his wife had executed the check without his knowledge or authorization. The notation on the stolen check indicated that it was for fees on the Hallonquist representation. From August 1998 until the trust account closed, Mr. Martin did not reconcile the trust account. Mr. Martin thought Mr. Edelman reconciled the trust account on those occasions when he returned to the Lakeside Pinetop office to conduct partnership business. Mr. Martin and Mr. Edleman did not have an adequate agreement or understanding that delineated what each person s specific trust account responsibilities were. In an unrelated matter, Mr. Martin wrote a check to a client before the client s money was deposited into the account. This was CAUTION: Nearly 16,000 attorneys are eligible to practice law in Arizona. Many attorneys share the same names. All reports should be read carefully for names, addresses and Bar numbers. done at the request of Mr. Edelman. Mr. Martin did not realize that it was improper to advance funds from the trust account when a client s check had been received but not yet deposited. Mr. Martin s conduct violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., particularly ER 1.15 and Rule 43 (d), guidelines 1(a) and 2(e), ARIZ.R.S.CT. JAMES E. McCORMICK Bar No ; File Nos , , , , and dated April 25, 2002, James E. McCormick, 7142 E. Thistle Ave., Mesa, AZ 85212, was suspended for six months and one day, by consent agreement, for conduct in violation of his duties and obligations as a lawyer. Mr. McCormick was ordered to pay restitution to two clients totaling $3,500 and to reimburse the Client Protection Fund for any claims paid out by the Fund up to the maximum amount of $100,000. Mr. McCormick was ordered to pay costs and expenses incurred by the State Bar in the sum of $740.86, together with interest at the legal rate, in this matter. In Count One, on Mar. 8, 1999, Wells Fargo Bank notified the State Bar that Mr. McCormick had overdrawn his trust account by $ During the investigation of this matter, Mr. McCormick was asked to provide pertinent trust account records to the State Bar. Mr. McCormick submitted some, but not all, of the requested records. The investigation by the State Bar s staff examiner found that Mr. McCormick commingled earned and unearned fees in his trust account; failed to maintain complete records of the handling, maintenance and disposition of client and/or third party trust account funds; failed to promptly and completely record all transactions in his trust account; failed to deposit client funds into his trust account. In one case, Mr. McCormick represented a client who was supposed to receive installment payments on a judgment. He sent the third installment to the client, but a review of the client ledger showed that none of the installment payments were deposited into the trust account. In Count Two, on July 22, 1999, Wells Fargo Bank notified the State Bar that Mr. McCormick had overdrawn his trust account by $ Mr. McCormick failed to verify that checks deposited in his trust account had cleared before issuing disbursement checks from the trust account. In Count Three, Mr. McCormick represented a client in modifying her divorce decree. In January 1999, Mr. McCormick 52 ARIZONA ATTORNEY MARCH 2003

5 sent financial information forms to the client to fill out. The client filled out the documents and returned them to Mr. McCormick to be filed with the court, but Mr. McCormick failed to file the documents with the court. In April 1999, the client called Mr. McCormick s office to ascertain the status of the case. Mr. McCormick was unable to contact the client until May 1999, after the client s daughter had moved in with the client, at which time the client learned Mr. McCormick had not filed the financial information with the court. In June 1999, the client again filled out the financial information documents and gave them to Mr. McCormick for filing. Until November 1999, the client was unaware that Mr. McCormick had never filed the papers with the court. Mr. McCormick informed the client that she would not be responsible for the child support payments while the client was unemployed and while the daughter was staying with her. After the daughter returned to the ex-husband in September 1999, the client received a letter from Child Support for back arrearages. The client tried to contact Mr. McCormick but Mr. McCormick failed to return any of her calls. In or about the end of 1999, the client terminated Mr. McCormick s services and requested return of $1,000 of her retainer. Mr. McCormick only sent her one bill to account for the money. Mr. McCormick told the client that he did not have the funds because he had closed his accounts to pay off the medical bills for his child. In Count Four, Mr. McCormick represented a client to collect past due support from an ex-husband based upon their Montana divorce decree and received a retainer of $2,000. On Sept. 29, 1998, the client received a bill from Mr. McCormick showing he had completed $443 worth of work. She called Mr. McCormick to seek a refund of the balance of the retainer, but Mr. McCormick failed to respond. In February 1999 the client spoke with Mr. McCormick by telephone and he agreed to refund a portion of the retainer, but informed the client it would be a couple of months before he could pay her. In April 1999 the client again tried to contact Mr. McCormick to obtain her refunds and left telephone voice messages, but Mr. McCormick failed to respond. On Aug. 23, 1999, the client sent a registered letter demanding the return of the unused retainer but Mr. McCormick failed to respond. The client kept leaving messages, which went unreturned, until she filed her bar complaint in December In Count Five, on Mar. 7, 2000, the Director of the State Bar s Law Office Management Assistance Program audited Mr. McCormick s practice. The audit revealed misconduct that the parties agreed violated ER 1.3, ER 1.8(e), ER 1.15 and Rules 43 and 44, ARIZ.R.S.CT. In Count Six, on Aug. 11, 2000, Bank of America notified the State Bar that Respondent had overdrawn his trust account by $ During investigation of this matter, Mr. McCormick was asked to provide pertinent trust account records to the State Bar. Mr. McCormick submitted some but not all of the requested records. The investigation by the State Bar s staff examiner found that Mr. McCormick failed to maintain complete records of the handling, maintenance and disposition of client and/or third party trust account funds; failed to appropriately safeguard client funds in his trust account; failed to exercise due professional care in the performance of his duties pursuant to the trust account guidelines and failed to maintain internal controls within his office to safeguard client funds held in trust. In Count Seven, Mr. McCormick represented defendants in a civil matter. At a settlement conference, a codefendant made a settlement offer to plaintiffs and Mr. McCormick s clients. Since the client did not appear and Mr. McCormick had no authority to settle, Mr. McCormick indicated to plaintiff s counsel that he would contact his clients, which he failed to do despite numerous attempts from plaintiff s counsel to contact Mr. McCormick. Thereafter plaintiff s counsel filed a Request for Production and deposition notices. At plaintiff s counsel s request, the court set a second settlement conference and ordered that all clients appear personally or telephonically. Mr. McCormick failed to respond to the outstanding discovery and his clients did not appear at the depositions. Plaintiff s counsel then filed a Motion to Compel and a Motion for Sanctions and a hearing was scheduled for after the settlement conference. Mr. McCormick and his clients failed to appear for the settlement conference, but Mr. McCormick did appear at the hearing where the court ordered Mr. McCormick to make arrangements with plaintiff s counsel to take depositions and respond to the overdue discovery, which Mr. McCormick failed to do. There were three aggravating factors Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Section 9.22: (b) dishonest or selfish motive, (c) pattern of misconduct and (d) multiple offenses. There were five mitigating factors found pursuant to Section 9.32 of the ABA Standards: (a) absence of prior disciplinary record, (c) personal or emotional problems, (e) cooperative attitude toward proceedings, (f) inexperience in the practice of law and (l) remorse. Mr. McCormick s conduct violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., particularly ER 1.2, ER 1.3, ER 1.4, ER 1.8(e), ER 1.15, ER 1.16, ER 3.2 and ER 8.4(c) and (d) and Rules 43 and 44, ARIZ.R.S.CT. SARA JANE ODNEAL Bar No ; File Nos , and dated July 3, 2002, Sara Jane Odneal, 2826 S. Carriage Lane #100, Mesa, AZ 85202, was suspended for 90 days for violation of her duties and obligations as a lawyer. Upon reinstatement, Ms. Odneal will be placed on probation for two years, including participating in the LOMAP program. Ms. Odneal was ordered to reimburse the Client Protection Fund for any claims paid by the Fund up to the maximum amount of $100,000. Ms. Odneal was also ordered to pay costs and expenses incurred by the State Bar in the amount of $2,847.80, together with interest at the legal rate. In the first matter, Ms. Odneal was retained by a client in a divorce proceeding. The client paid Ms. Odeneal a $2,500 retainer. The entire retainer was not used in the representation, but despite a request from the client, Ms. Odneal never provided the client with an accounting. The client filed a bar complaint against Ms. Odneal and Ms. Odneal failed to respond to the State Bar despite being sent two letters from the Bar notifying her of her duty to respond. Since Odneal failed to return the unused portion of the retainer to the client, the client had to sue Odneal in small claims court for $1,500 plus court costs which Ms. Odneal did not pay until a local news station covered the story. In the second matter, Ms. Odneal was retained to represent a client in divorce proceedings and received a retainer of $2,500. Despite a request from her client, Ms. Odneal never provided the client with an accounting. The client filed a bar complaint against Ms. Odneal and Ms. Odneal failed to respond to the State Bar despite being sent two letters from the Bar notifying her of her duty to respond. In Odneal s answer she claimed that the client had been paid back. However, the check was not mailed to the client until two months after the answer was filed. In the third matter, a client hired Ms. Odneal to represent him in a divorce proceeding and paid Ms. Odneal a retainer of $2,500. Ms. Odneal advised the client that he would be receiving a portion of the retainer back. The client made four phone calls MARCH 2003 ARIZONA ATTORNEY 53

6 attempting to obtain his refund without a response from Odneal. The client filed a bar complaint against Ms. Odneal, and Ms. Odneal failed to respond to the State Bar despite being sent two letters from the Bar notifying her of her duty to respond. In Odneal s answer, she claimed that the client had been paid back. However, the check was not mailed to the client until two months after the answer was filed. There were seven aggravating factors Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Section 9.22: (a) prior disciplinary offenses, (b) dishonest or selfish motive, (c) pattern of misconduct, (d) multiple offenses, (e) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceedings by intentionally failing to comply with rules and orders of the disciplinary agency, (f) submission of false evidence, false statements or other deceptive practices during the disciplinary process and (i) substantial experience in the practice of law. There was one mitigating factor found pursuant to Section 9.32 of the ABA Standards: (l) remorse. Ms. Odneal s conduct violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., particularly ER 1.4, ER 1.15, ER 1.16(d), ER 8.1(a) and (b), and ER 8.4(c) and Rule 51(h) and (i), ARIZ.R.S.CT. JOHN P. SILKEY, SR. Bar No ; File Nos , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and dated July 3, 2002, John P. Silkey, Sr., P.O. Box 6865, Chandler, AZ 85246, was suspended by consent for four years effective Dec. 8, 2000, for conduct in violation of his duties and obligations as a lawyer. Mr. Silkey was ordered to pay restitution to sixteen clients in the total amount of $21,350 and to reimburse the Client Protection Fund for any and all claims paid out by the Fund up to $100,000. Mr. Silkey was ordered to pay costs and expenses incurred by the State Bar of $2,163.95, together with interest at the legal rate, in this matter. Mr. Silkey took retainers from clients and then performed little or no work on their cases, basically abandoning his clients. Mr. Silkey stopped working on client cases, stopped corresponding with the clients, did not return client telephone calls and eventually moved his office without any notification to his clients. The parties agreed that there were four aggravating factors found pursuant to the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Section 9.22: (c) pattern of misconduct, (d) multiple offenses, (e) failure to cooperate, although once the matters went into formal proceedings Mr. Silkey was cooperative and (i) substantial experience in the practice of law. The Commission agreed and additionally found de novo one additional factor under Section 9.22: (a) prior disciplinary offenses. There were three mitigating factors found pursuant to Section 9.32 of the ABA Standards: (c) personal or emotional problems, (h) physical or mental disability or impairment and (i) delay in disciplinary proceedings. Mr. Silkey s conduct violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., particularly ER 1.1, ER 1.2, ER 1.3, ER 1.4, ER 1.5, ER 1.15, ER 1.16, ER 1.16(d), ER 3.2, ER 8.1(b), ER 8.4 and ER8.4(c) and (d) and Rule 51(h) and (i), ARIZ.R.S.CT. CHERYL L. SIVIC Bar No ; File Nos , , , , , , , , , and dated April 25, 2002, Cheryl L. Sivic, 2101 E. Broadway, Ste. 16, Tempe, AZ 85282, was disbarred for conduct in violation of her duties and obligations as a lawyer. Ms. Sivic was ordered to pay restitution totaling $33, Ms. Sivic was also ordered to reimburse the Client Protection Fund for any claims paid by the Fund up to the maximum of $100,000. Ms. Sivic was ordered to pay costs and expenses incurred by the State Bar in the sum of $4,728.10, together with interest at the legal rate, in this matter. Ms. Sivic was summarily suspended for nonpayment of bar dues and noncompliance with Mandatory Continuing Legal Education requirements on April 28, 2001 and summarily suspended on Sept. 15, 2000, for failure to participate in formal proceedings pursuant to Rule 52(A)(10). In the first matter, Ms. Sivic represented a client in an attempt to regain custody of the client s son from a previous marriage. The client left the country without paying for representation, and Ms. Sivic sued the client s wife for approximately $13,000 in attorney s fees. Although the client s wife retained counsel, Ms. Sivic corresponded with the client. Ms. Sivic also filed a motion to have the attorney disqualified based on a conflict of interest. An arbitrator ruled that Ms. Sivic s motion was without merit and awarded the client s wife $400 in attorney s fees for having to respond to the motion. In addition, Ms. Sivic s response to State Bar inquiries was printed on letterhead identifying Ms. Sivic as an attorney, even though she had been on administrative suspension since April 28, In the second matter, Ms. Sivic rented a house from a couple. The couple sued Ms. Sivic for damages to the house, and Ms. Sivic was held liable and a judgment entered against her for $16,675 in favor of the couple and $13,509 in favor of the insurance company. In September and November 1997, sanctions were imposed against Ms. Sivic for actions during the course of the case. Ms. Sivic filed for bankruptcy and attempted to get the judgment entered against her discharged but the bankruptcy judge ruled that Ms. Sivic willfully and maliciously caused the damage and so the judgment was non-dischargeable. Ms. Sivic did not respond to the State Bar inquiries. In the remaining nine matters, despite her summary suspension on April 28, 2000, Ms. Sivic continued to hold herself out as an attorney licensed to practice law and was retained by new clients. In some instances, Ms. Sivic continued to engage in the unauthorized practice of law by filing pleadings with the courts, corresponding with opposing counsel and attending hearings. Ms. Sivic failed to tell the clients or the courts that she was summarily suspended since April 28, Many of these clients subsequently had difficulty in communicating with Ms. Sivic and when they demanded their files and/or retainers be returned, Ms. Sivic failed to respond or comply with those requests. In other instances, Ms. Sivic accepted new clients and took retainers but then failed to abide by her clients instructions as she did not file the proper documents or paperwork with the courts for their cases. The clients subsequently had difficulty in communicating with Ms. Sivic and when they demanded their files and/or retainers be returned, Ms. Sivic failed to respond or comply with those requests. Ms. Sivic failed to respond to the State Bar inquiries in these nine matters. There were six aggravating factors found Lawyer Sanctions, Section 9.22: (c) pattern of misconduct, (d) multiple offenses, (e) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, (h) vulnerability of the victim, (i) substantial experience in the practice of law and (j) indifference to making restitution. The Hearing Officer found one mitigating factor found pursuant to Section 9.32 of the ABA Standards: (a) absence of prior disciplinary record. However, between the time of the report and the time of the Commission s 54 ARIZONA ATTORNEY MARCH 2003

7 hearing the case, Ms. Sivic was suspended in an unrelated case, for six months and one day on May 31, 2001, and therefore the Commission found de novo that there were no mitigating factors present. Ms. Sivic s conduct violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., particularly ER 1.1, ER 1.2, ER 1.3, ER 1.4, ER 1.5, ER 1.16(d), ER 3.1, ER 3.3, ER 3.4, ER 3.4(c), ER 4.2, ER 5.5, ER 7.1(a), ER 7.5(a), ER 8.1 and ER 8.4 and Rules 51(e), (f) (h), (i) and (k) and Rule 63, ARIZ.R.S.CT. MARK A. TUCKER Bar No ; File No dated Sept. 4, 2002, Mark A. Tucker, 2650 E. Southern Ave., Mesa, AZ 85204, was censured and placed on one year probation with participation in either LOMAP or the State Bar s Trust Account Ethics Enhancement Program, by consent, for violation of his duties and obligations as a lawyer. Mr. Tucker was also ordered to pay costs and expenses incurred by the State Bar in the amount of $835.16, together with interest at the legal rate. Mr. Tucker s client trust account became overdrawn. Upon investigation it was learned that Mr. Tucker made disbursements from the client trust account when there were insufficient client funds in the trust account. Specifically, Mr. Tucker inadvertently used funds of one client to pay another. Additionally, Mr. Tucker failed to confirm the collection of deposited funds prior to drawing offsetting disbursements. Finally, Mr. Tucker failed to conduct monthly account reconciliations. There were no aggravating factors found pursuant to Section 9.22 of the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions. There were three mitigating factors found pursuant to Section 9.32 of the ABA Standards: (a) absence of prior disciplinary history, (e) full and free disclosure to a disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings and (l) remorse. Mr. Tucker s conduct violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., specifically ER 1.15 and Rules 43 and 44, ARIZ.R.S.CT. DIANA WEINERT-LANDRITH Bar No ; File No dated May 1, 2002, Diana Weinert-Landrith, E. Kalil Drive, Scottsdale, AZ 85259, was suspended for six months, effective June 1, 2002 for violation of her duties and obligations as a lawyer. Upon reinstatement, Ms. Weinert-Landrith was also placed on proba- tion for a period of two years; probation requires participation in the MAP and LOMAP programs and participation in the State Bar s Trust Account Ethics Enhancement Program within one year of reinstatement. Ms. Weinert-Landrith was ordered to reimburse the Client Protection Fund for any monies paid by the Fund up to the amount of $100,000. Ms. Weinert- Landrith was also ordered to pay costs and expenses incurred by the State Bar in the amount of $5,053.43, together with interest at the legal rate. The State Bar received notice on Dec. 31, 1998, that Ms. Weinert-Landrith s Norwest trust account was overdrawn in the amount of $1, The bank paid items presented even though there were insufficient funds. On Mar. 29, 1999, a second trust account issue was brought to the State Bar s attention by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, related to disbursements from Ms. Weinert-Landrith s Bank One trust account. The State Bar contacted Ms. Weinert-Landrith and requested that she produce specific trust account records. Approximately six weeks later, Ms. Weinert-Landrith wrote to the State Bar and denied the improper use of funds and disclosed that she did not possess any bank statements or registers because she produced those records/documents to the corporation s bankruptcy attorney in relation to the Bank One trust account. Ms. Weinert- Landrith did not address the circumstances surrounding the overdraft on the Norwest trust account. In later correspondence Ms. Weinert- Landrith advised that she could not produce any trust account records because her office had been burglarized in September 1997 and her secretary s computer and the operating account register had been stolen. The State Bar obtained a subpoena duces tecum to compel the production of trust account records related to both the Norwest and Bank One trust accounts. Due to Ms. Weinert- Landrith s failure to produce any records pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum, the State Bar filed a request for writ of attachment with the Maricopa County Superior Court on Nov. 1, Ms. Weinert-Landrith appeared before Judge Myers with the available records in her possession and was deposed as to the records, which included settlement invoices for clients, some check registers, a wire credit to the Norwest trust account and client time sheets and/or billing statements. The State Bar also subpoenaed the trust account records from Bank One and Ms. Weinert-Landrith was asked to reconstruct the trust account register. Ms. Weinert- Landrith failed to provide a reconstructed register as requested by the State Bar. The State Bar filed a formal complaint on June 8, Ms. Weinert-Landrith failed to initially file a disclosure statement and the State Bar filed a motion to compel discovery. Ms. Weinert-Landrith, through counsel, ultimately filed some disclosure statements that included the requested reconstructed check register from the Bank One trust account. Overall, Ms. Weinert-Landrith failed to keep client property separate from her own as she deposited personal funds into her Bank One and Norwest trust accounts on numerous occasions and made various third party disbursements directly from the accounts. Ms. Weinert-Landrith failed to safeguard client property when she commingled personal funds in her trust accounts; allowed her trust accounts to become overdrawn and failed to close her Bank One trust account despite the belief that trust account checks were stolen in a burglary and the account potentially compromised. Ms. Weinert- Landrith failed to maintain complete and accurate records of the use and maintenance of the trust account; failed to maintain client ledgers and/or comparables indicating debits, credits and balances on her trust account and failed to maintain duplicate deposit slips and/or their equivalents. Ms. Weinert- Landrith also failed to provide information and documentation pursuant to the State Bar s investigation thereby violating rules requiring a lawyer to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority. There were five aggravating factors found Lawyer Sanctions, Section 9.22: (a) prior disciplinary offenses, (c) pattern of misconduct, (d) multiple offenses, (g) refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct and (i) substantial experience in the practice of law. There were two mitigating factors found pursuant to Section 9.32 of the ABA Standards: (b) absence of a dishonest or selfish motive and (c) personal or emotional problems. Ms. Weinert-Landrith s conduct violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., particularly ER 1.15 and ER 8.1(b) and Rules 43, 44 and 51(h) and (i), ARIZ.R.S.CT. MARK D. WINEMILLER Bar No ; File Nos and dated June 14, 2002, Mark D. Winemiller, 5802 W. Mercer, Glendale, AZ 85304, was suspended for six months for violation of his duties and obligations as a lawyer. Upon reinstatement, Mr. Winemiller will be placed on MARCH 2003 ARIZONA ATTORNEY 55

8 two years probation, including participation in the LOMAP program, and complete the State Bar s Trust Account Ethics Enhancement Program. Mr. Winemiller was ordered to reimburse the Client Protection Fund for any monies paid by the Fund to the amount of $100,000. Mr. Winemiller was also ordered to pay costs and expenses incurred by the State Bar in the amount of $3,393.98, together with interest at the legal rate. The State Bar received a notice from Mr. Winemiller s IOLTA trust account bank that one of the trust account checks had been returned for insufficient funds. Following the notice, the State Bar examiner communicated in writing and by telephone with Mr. Winemiller and asked for additional information. After receiving the information from Mr. Winemiller it was found that: (1) Mr. Winemiller s trust account had a negative balance at various times between June 17 and Sept. 22, 1998; (2) Mr. Winemiller failed to maintain sufficiently detailed ledgers that adequately identified individual clients and sources of funds in his trust account; (3) Mr. Winemiller failed to adequately denote on the deposit slip duplicates any specific client identity for funds deposited into his trust account; (4) Mr. Winemiller was using his trust account as his own personal and professional account on a routine basis; and (5) Mr. Winemiller failed to maintain complete trust account records that should have covered all transactions from the time client funds were received until the final disposition, if any. There were four aggravating factors found Lawyer Sanctions, Section 9.22: (a) prior disciplinary offenses, (d) multiple offenses, (g) refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct, and (i) substantial experience in the practice of law. There were four mitigating factors found pursuant to Section 9.32 of the ABA Standards: (b) absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, (e) full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings, (j) delay in disciplinary proceedings and (m) remoteness of prior offenses. Mr. Winemiller s conduct violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., particularly ER 1.15 and Rules 43(a) and (d) and 44(a), ARIZ.R.S.CT. ROBERT M. YATES Bar No ; File Nos and dated May 24, 2002, Robert M. Yates, P.O. Box 2306, Arizona City, AZ 85223, was suspended for three years for violation of his duties and obligations as a lawyer. Upon reinstatement, Mr. Yates was also placed on two years probation, including maintaining liability insurance coverage and participation in the LOMAP program. Mr. Yates was ordered to reimburse the Client Protection Fund for any claims paid out by the Fund up to the maximum amount of $100,000. Mr. Yates was also ordered to pay costs and expenses incurred by the State Bar in the amount of $1,680.88, together with interest at the legal rate, in this matter. Mr. Yates was summarily suspended on April 28, 2000, for non-payment of dues. He was reinstated on July 13, Mr. Yates was summarily suspended on June 14, 2000, for non-compliance with MCLE and was reinstated on July 13, Mr. Yates was summarily suspended on April 20, 2001, for non-payment of dues and remains suspended. In Count One, Mr. Yates represented the City of Coolidge as a City Attorney. Mr. Yates appeared as counsel on behalf of his client on at least two occasions at city council meetings while he was suspended from the practice of law. Mr. Yates engaged in the unauthorized practice of law when he appeared at these meetings while suspended. Mr. Yates further failed to advise his client that he was suspended prior to appearing at a city council meeting on June 26, Mr. Yates knowingly made misrepresentations to his client and the public concerning his suspension and the grounds for the suspension at a meeting held on July 10, At this meeting, and after being asked specifically about his membership status with the State Bar, Mr. Yates advised the city council that the State Bar had made a mistake in suspending him as the State Bar got him mixed up with a Robert Yates who lives in Chandler. Mr. Yates claimed that he had straightened the matter out and had been reinstated. These statements were false, as Mr. Yates was not reinstated until July 13, In Count Two, Mr. Yates was advised by the State Bar by letter dated July 3, 2000, of the charges in this matter and was asked to provide a written response. Mr. Yates failed to respond to the State Bar or cooperate in its investigation of this matter. In Count Three, Mr. Yates failed to notify opposing counsel that he was suspended from the practice of law. Furthermore, Mr. Yates asked opposing counsel to continue depositions due to Mr. Yates trial schedule, when, in fact, he could not have conducted the depositions as scheduled because he was suspended. Mr. Yates knowingly made misrepresentations to opposing counsel during a telephone conversation on June 23, 2000, regarding his suspension and the circumstances surrounding the suspension. Mr. Yates knowingly made misrepresentations to the court and opposing counsel during a hearing on July 5, 2000, when he told the court and opposing counsel that he had been reinstated when he had not. In fact, as of July 5, 2000, Mr. Yates had still failed to pay his dues. The court ordered Mr. Yates to file proof of his reinstatement within five days. Mr. Yates engaged in the unauthorized practice of law when he appeared at the hearing on July 5, 2000, while he was suspended from the practice of law. In Count Four, Mr. Yates was advised by the State Bar by letters dated July 21, 2000, and July 26, 2000, of the charges in this matter and was asked to provide a written response. Mr. Yates failed to respond to the State Bar or cooperate in its investigation of this matter. The Hearing Officer found six aggravating factors pursuant to the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Section 9.22: (b) dishonest or selfish motive, (c) pattern of misconduct, (d) multiple offenses, (e) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency and (i) substantial experience in the practice of law. The Hearing Officer found one mitigating factor found pursuant to Section 9.32 of the ABA Standards: (a) absence of prior disciplinary record. However, on Aug. 31, 2001, a final Judgment and Order was entered in File No , suspending Mr. Yates for six months and one day and ordering him to pay costs and restitution. The Hearing Officer considered this Order but determined the Order did not become final until after the conduct in this case occurred. Based on the final Judgment and Order in File No , the Commission found de novo the aggravating factor of 9.22(a) (prior disciplinary record), gave little weight to this as an aggravating factor, and then found no mitigating factors were present. Mr. Yates conduct violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., particularly ER 1.4(b), ER 3.3, ER 3.4(c), ER 4.1, ER 5.5, ER 8.1(b), and ER 8.4(c) and (d) and Rules 31(a)(3) and 51(e), (f), (h), (i) and (k), ARIZ.R.S.CT. CORRECTION STUART J. REILLY Bar No ; File Nos , , , and The summary published in the January 2003 ARIZONA ATTORNEY inadvertently listed Mr. Reilly s suspension as a 30-day suspension when in fact Mr. Reilly received a six-month suspension that was effective Mar. 28, The State Bar apologizes for the mistake. 56 ARIZONA ATTORNEY MARCH 2003

LAWYER REGULATION. was assessed the costs and expenses of the disciplinary

LAWYER REGULATION. was assessed the costs and expenses of the disciplinary SANCTIONED ATTORNEYS CHERYL C. CAYCE Bar No. 012447; File No. 04-2103 Supreme Court No. SB-06-0177-D dated Feb. 9, 2007, Cheryl C. Cayce, 2730 E. Broadway, Suite 250, Tucson, AZ 85716, a member of the

More information

LAWYER REGULATION SANCTIONED ATTORNEYS 50 ARIZONA ATTORNEY OCTOBER 2007. www.myazbar.org

LAWYER REGULATION SANCTIONED ATTORNEYS 50 ARIZONA ATTORNEY OCTOBER 2007. www.myazbar.org LAWYER REGULATION SANCTIONED ATTORNEYS SUZANNE BAFFA Bar No. 022807 Supreme Court No. SB-06-0159-M The Arizona Supreme Court, by order dated Feb. 12, 2007, revoked the license to practice law of Suzanne

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 112,569. In the Matter of LUCAS L. THOMPSON, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 112,569. In the Matter of LUCAS L. THOMPSON, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 112,569 In the Matter of LUCAS L. THOMPSON, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed February 27, 2015.

More information

lawyer regulation SANCTIONED ATTORNEYS

lawyer regulation SANCTIONED ATTORNEYS SANCTIONED ATTORNEYS MARK F. BRINTON Bar No. 007674; File Nos. 02-1473, 03-0042 and 03-0440 dated Feb. 20, 2004, Mark F. Brinton, 1745 S. Alma School Rd., Suite H-102, Mesa, AZ 85210, was suspended for

More information

[Cite as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vivo, 135 Ohio St.3d 82, 2012-Ohio-5682.]

[Cite as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vivo, 135 Ohio St.3d 82, 2012-Ohio-5682.] [Cite as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vivo, 135 Ohio St.3d 82, 2012-Ohio-5682.] MAHONING COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. VIVO. [Cite as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vivo, 135 Ohio St.3d 82, 2012-Ohio-5682.] Attorneys

More information

BAR COMMUNITY LAWYER REGULATION. from the board lawyer regulation news for members people

BAR COMMUNITY LAWYER REGULATION. from the board lawyer regulation news for members people from the board lawyer regulation news for members people BAR COMMUNITY LAWYER REGULATION SANCTIONED ATTORNEYS BARBARA T. BROWN Bar No. 006166; File No. 02-0560, 02-1015 Supreme Court No. SB-08-0143-D Barbara

More information

NO. 03-B-0910 IN RE: HARRY E. CANTRELL, JR. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

NO. 03-B-0910 IN RE: HARRY E. CANTRELL, JR. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS 05/02/03 See News Release 032 for any concurrences and/or dissents. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 03-B-0910 IN RE: HARRY E. CANTRELL, JR. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM This matter arises

More information

INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES COMMISSION ON BAR DISCIPLINE GUIDELINES FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS A. PURPOSE AND NATURE OF SANCTIONS

INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES COMMISSION ON BAR DISCIPLINE GUIDELINES FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS A. PURPOSE AND NATURE OF SANCTIONS INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES COMMISSION ON BAR DISCIPLINE GUIDELINES FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS A. PURPOSE AND NATURE OF SANCTIONS 1.1 Purpose of Lawyer Discipline Proceedings The purpose of lawyer

More information

lawyer regulation INTERIM SUSPENSION SANCTIONED ATTORNEYS

lawyer regulation INTERIM SUSPENSION SANCTIONED ATTORNEYS INTERIM SUSPENSION WILLIAM J. DOWNEY Bar No. 007379; File Nos. 00-0429, 00-1469 and 00-2058 dated March 26, 2003, William J. Downey, Phoenix, Arizona, was placed on interim suspension pursuant to Rule

More information

NO. 10-B-2582 IN RE: ROBERT L. BARRIOS ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

NO. 10-B-2582 IN RE: ROBERT L. BARRIOS ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS 02/04/2011 "See News Release 008 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 10-B-2582 IN RE: ROBERT L. BARRIOS ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM * This disciplinary

More information

Complaints Against Lawyers

Complaints Against Lawyers complain.qxp 4/16/2008 10:16 AM Page 7 Complaints Against Lawyers When you hire a lawyer to handle a particular matter, you are a consumer of legal services, and as in any consumer relationship, you and

More information

02/26/2014 "See News Release 013 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 14-B-0061 IN RE: KEISHA M.

02/26/2014 See News Release 013 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 14-B-0061 IN RE: KEISHA M. 02/26/2014 "See News Release 013 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 14-B-0061 IN RE: KEISHA M. JONES-JOSEPH ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM This disciplinary

More information

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 98-B-2513 IN RE: BARBARA IONE BIVINS ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 98-B-2513 IN RE: BARBARA IONE BIVINS ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 98-B-2513 IN RE: BARBARA IONE BIVINS ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM * This attorney disciplinary proceeding arises from three counts of formal charges instituted

More information

NO. 00-B-3532 IN RE: LEONARD O. PARKER, JR ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

NO. 00-B-3532 IN RE: LEONARD O. PARKER, JR ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS 03/15/02 See News Release 020 for any concurrences and/or dissents. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 00-B-3532 IN RE: LEONARD O. PARKER, JR ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM This disciplinary

More information

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT PANEL B FINDINGS AND ORDER

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT PANEL B FINDINGS AND ORDER BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT PANEL B IN RE: KENNETH ALAN HARPER ARKANSAS BAR ID NO. 89022 CPC DOCKET NO. 2013-033 FINDINGS AND ORDER The formal charges of misconduct upon

More information

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT In re: Complaint against BEFORE THE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL CONDudilECEIVED OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO MAR 2 7 BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Stephanie Gail Gussler, Esq. P.O. Box 597 Granville, OH 43023

More information

JUSTICE COURT # 2 GRAHAM COUNTY STATE OF ARIZONA P.O. BOX 1159, 136 WEST CENTER STREET, PIMA AZ 85543 PHONE (928) 485-2771 FAX (928) 485-9961

JUSTICE COURT # 2 GRAHAM COUNTY STATE OF ARIZONA P.O. BOX 1159, 136 WEST CENTER STREET, PIMA AZ 85543 PHONE (928) 485-2771 FAX (928) 485-9961 JUSTICE COURT # 2 GRAHAM COUNTY STATE OF ARIZONA P.O. BOX 1159, 136 WEST CENTER STREET, PIMA AZ 85543 PHONE (928) 485-2771 FAX (928) 485-9961 SMALL CLAIMS INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING ***EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1,

More information

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO People v. Kocel, Report,No.02PDJ035,1-08-03. Attorney Regulation. Respondent, Michael S. Kocel, attorney registration number 16305 was suspended from the practice of law in the State of Colorado for a

More information

People v. Terry Ross. 14PDJ078, consolidated with 14PDJ093. May 6, 2015.

People v. Terry Ross. 14PDJ078, consolidated with 14PDJ093. May 6, 2015. People v. Terry Ross. 14PDJ078, consolidated with 14PDJ093. May 6, 2015. Following a sanctions hearing, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Terry Ross (Attorney Registration Number 16588). The disbarment

More information

LAWYER REGULATION SANCTIONED ATTORNEYS 80 A R I Z O N A AT T O R N E Y M AY 2 0 0 8. w w w. m y a z b a r. o r g

LAWYER REGULATION SANCTIONED ATTORNEYS 80 A R I Z O N A AT T O R N E Y M AY 2 0 0 8. w w w. m y a z b a r. o r g LAWYER REGULATION SANCTIONED ATTORNEYS JOHN THOMAS BANTA Bar No. 010550; File No. 06-0115 Supreme Court No. SB-07-0157-D Oct. 8, 2007, John Thomas Banta, 2228 W. Northern, #B212, Phoenix, AZ 85021, a member

More information

People v. Fiore. 12PDJ076. March 15, 2013. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred David Anthony Fiore (Attorney Registration

People v. Fiore. 12PDJ076. March 15, 2013. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred David Anthony Fiore (Attorney Registration People v. Fiore. 12PDJ076. March 15, 2013. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred David Anthony Fiore (Attorney Registration Number 39729), effective April 19, 2013. Fiore failed

More information

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS Definitions Adopted by the Michigan Supreme Court in Grievance Administrator v Lopatin, 462 Mich 235, 238 n 1 (2000) AInjury@ is harm to

More information

November 2005. 68 Tex. B. J. 960

November 2005. 68 Tex. B. J. 960 November 2005 68 Tex. B. J. 960 BODA ACTIONS On Sept. 14, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals signed a judgment of indefinite disability suspension against Suzanne Elizabeth Mann Minx, 39, of Porter, in

More information

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN OFFICE OF LAWYER REGULATION. Colleen J. Locke 13-OLR- 12 Attorney at Law

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN OFFICE OF LAWYER REGULATION. Colleen J. Locke 13-OLR- 12 Attorney at Law SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN OFFICE OF LAWYER REGULATION Public Reprimand with Consent Colleen J. Locke 13-OLR- 12 Attorney at Law Colleen J. Locke is a Wisconsin-licensed attorney, whose address of record

More information

Disciplinary Summary

Disciplinary Summary Disciplinary Summary The following compilation of disciplinary action taken by the Board of Professional Responsibility collects cases arising since 2002, along with some earlier cases published in Pacific

More information

LAWYER REGULATION REINSTATEMENT INTERIM SUSPENSION SANCTIONED ATTORNEYS 42 ARIZONA ATTORNEY JULY/AUGUST 2006. www.myazbar.org

LAWYER REGULATION REINSTATEMENT INTERIM SUSPENSION SANCTIONED ATTORNEYS 42 ARIZONA ATTORNEY JULY/AUGUST 2006. www.myazbar.org LAWYER REGULATION REINSTATEMENT WALTER E. MOAK Bar No. 004849; File No. 04-6002 Supreme Court No. SB-06-0006-D By Arizona Supreme Court order dated March 14, 2006, Walter E. Moak, 1930 S. Alma School Rd.,

More information

NO. 04-B-0828 IN RE: VINCENT ROSS CICARDO ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

NO. 04-B-0828 IN RE: VINCENT ROSS CICARDO ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS 07/02/04 See News Release 055 for any concurrences and/or dissents. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 04-B-0828 IN RE: VINCENT ROSS CICARDO ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM This disciplinary matter

More information

HP0868, LD 1187, item 1, 123rd Maine State Legislature An Act To Recoup Health Care Funds through the Maine False Claims Act

HP0868, LD 1187, item 1, 123rd Maine State Legislature An Act To Recoup Health Care Funds through the Maine False Claims Act PLEASE NOTE: Legislative Information cannot perform research, provide legal advice, or interpret Maine law. For legal assistance, please contact a qualified attorney. Be it enacted by the People of the

More information

October 2005. 68 Tex. B. J. 868

October 2005. 68 Tex. B. J. 868 October 2005 68 Tex. B. J. 868 REINSTATEMENT Robert L. Crill, 54, of Arlington, has petitioned the District Court of Tarrant County for reinstatement as a member of the State Bar of Texas. BODA ACTIONS

More information

FILED November 9, 2007

FILED November 9, 2007 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA September 2007 Term No. 33067 LAWYER DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Petitioner FILED November 9, 2007 released at 10:00 a.m. RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 2013 Term. No. 12-0005. LAWYER DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Petitioner. JOHN P. SULLIVAN, Respondent

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 2013 Term. No. 12-0005. LAWYER DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Petitioner. JOHN P. SULLIVAN, Respondent IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 2013 Term No. 12-0005 FILED January 17, 2013 released at 3:00 p.m. RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA LAWYER DISCIPLINARY

More information

[Cite as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Schiff, 139 Ohio St.3d 456, 2014-Ohio-2573.]

[Cite as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Schiff, 139 Ohio St.3d 456, 2014-Ohio-2573.] [Cite as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Schiff, 139 Ohio St.3d 456, 2014-Ohio-2573.] CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. SCHIFF. [Cite as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Schiff, 139 Ohio St.3d 456,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, WYOMING STATE BAR, 2015 WY 114 April Term, A.D. 2015 August 19, 2015 Petitioner, v. D-15-0005 FRANK J. JONES, WSB No. 4-1050,

More information

[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Dearfield, 130 Ohio St.3d 363, 2011-Ohio-5295.]

[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Dearfield, 130 Ohio St.3d 363, 2011-Ohio-5295.] [Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Dearfield, 130 Ohio St.3d 363, 2011-Ohio-5295.] CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. DEARFIELD. [Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Dearfield, 130 Ohio St.3d 363, 2011-Ohio-5295.]

More information

CALIFORNIA FALSE CLAIMS ACT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12650-12656

CALIFORNIA FALSE CLAIMS ACT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12650-12656 CALIFORNIA FALSE CLAIMS ACT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12650-12656 12650. (a) This article shall be known and may be cited as the False Claims Act. (b) For purposes of this article: (1) "Claim" includes any

More information

General District Courts

General District Courts General District Courts To Understand Your Visit to Court You Should Know: It is the courts wish that you know your rights and duties. We want every person who comes here to receive fair treatment in accordance

More information

BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERhECEIVED ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE OF n THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERhECEIVED ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE OF n THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO In re: Complaint against Joseph Robert Compoli, Esq. Joseph Compoli Law Office 612 East 185th Street Cleveland, OH 44119 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERhECEIVED ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE OF n THE SUPREME

More information

SELECT SERVICES FLAT FEE REPRESENTATION AGREEMENT page 1 of 8

SELECT SERVICES FLAT FEE REPRESENTATION AGREEMENT page 1 of 8 Utah Family Law, LC Tel. No. 801-466-9277 E-mail: eric@divorceutah.com Attorney Eric K. Johnson - Attorney Russell W. Hartvigsen Mail: 2666 South 2000 East, Suite 101 Salt Lake City Utah 84109 REMEMBER:

More information

The Opinions handed down on the 21st day of October, 2003, are as follows:

The Opinions handed down on the 21st day of October, 2003, are as follows: FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 71 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 21st day of October, 2003, are as follows: PER CURIAM: 2003-B -0287 IN RE: MICHAEL

More information

People v. Eamick. 06PDJ086. June 21, 2007. Attorney Regulation. Following a hearing, a Hearing Board publicly censured Respondent Dennis L.

People v. Eamick. 06PDJ086. June 21, 2007. Attorney Regulation. Following a hearing, a Hearing Board publicly censured Respondent Dennis L. People v. Eamick. 06PDJ086. June 21, 2007. Attorney Regulation. Following a hearing, a Hearing Board publicly censured Respondent Dennis L. Eamick (Attorney Registration No. 34259) and ordered him to pay

More information

AN ACT IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AN ACT IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AN ACT IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA To amend the District of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985 to make the District s false claims act consistent with federal law and thereby qualify

More information

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE BEFORE THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE 600 17 TH STREET, SUITE 510-S DENVER, CO 80202 Complainant: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE

More information

LAWYER REGULATION. reinstated as a member of the State Bar.

LAWYER REGULATION. reinstated as a member of the State Bar. LAWYER REGULATION REINSTATED ATTORNEYS RICARDO A. BRACAMONTE Bar No. 014303; File No. 08-1300 Supreme Court No. SB-09-0087-D dated Dec. 17, 2009, Ricardo A. Bracamonte, 197 E. Fort Lowell Rd., Tucson,

More information

The two sides disagree on how much money, if any, could have been awarded if Plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, were to prevail at trial.

The two sides disagree on how much money, if any, could have been awarded if Plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, were to prevail at trial. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES If you are a subscriber of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and you, or your dependent, have been diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder, you could receive

More information

Missouri Small Claims Court Handbook. The Missouri Bar Young Lawyers' Section

Missouri Small Claims Court Handbook. The Missouri Bar Young Lawyers' Section Missouri Small Claims Court Handbook The Missouri Bar Young Lawyers' Section TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION TO THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT...1 Page II. THINGS TO CONSIDER BEFORE BRINGING A CLAIM...1 A. WHO

More information

IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT, PREBLE COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT, PREBLE COUNTY, OHIO IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT, PREBLE COUNTY, OHIO IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LOCAL RULES: ENTRY The following local rules are adopted to govern the practice and procedures of this Court, subject

More information

FOR USE IN THE MARION COUNTY SMALL CLAIMS COURTS

FOR USE IN THE MARION COUNTY SMALL CLAIMS COURTS LITIGANTS MANUAL FOR USE IN THE MARION COUNTY SMALL CLAIMS COURTS The Indiana General Assembly created the Marion County Small Claims Courts and provided that litigants may try their cases in such courts

More information

BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL : No. 376, Disciplinary Docket No. 3 Petitioner : Supreme Court : v. : No. 87 DB 2001 Disciplinary Board

More information

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Lord, 114 Ohio St.3d 466, 2007-Ohio-4260.]

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Lord, 114 Ohio St.3d 466, 2007-Ohio-4260.] [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Lord, 114 Ohio St.3d 466, 2007-Ohio-4260.] DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. LORD. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Lord, 114 Ohio St.3d 466, 2007-Ohio-4260.] Attorneys Misconduct

More information

Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Judicial Department 61 Broadway New York, New York 10006 (212) 401-0800 (212) 287-1045 FAX

Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Judicial Department 61 Broadway New York, New York 10006 (212) 401-0800 (212) 287-1045 FAX Departmental Disciplinary Committee Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Judicial Department 61 Broadway (212) 401-0800 (212) 287-1045 FAX HOW TO FILE A COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION When you hire a lawyer

More information

What to Do When Your Witness Testimony Doesn t Match His or Her Declaration

What to Do When Your Witness Testimony Doesn t Match His or Her Declaration What to Do When Your Witness Testimony Doesn t Match His or Her Declaration Russell R. Yurk Jennings, Haug & Cunningham, L.L.P. 2800 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1800 Phoenix, AZ 85004-1049 (602) 234-7819

More information

[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. O'Brien, 96 Ohio St.3d 151, 2002-Ohio-3621.]

[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. O'Brien, 96 Ohio St.3d 151, 2002-Ohio-3621.] [Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. O'Brien, 96 Ohio St.3d 151, 2002-Ohio-3621.] CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. O BRIEN. [Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. O Brien, 96 Ohio St.3d 151, 2002-Ohio-3621.] Attorneys

More information

by Keith L. Rucinski 18 Ohio Lawyer March/April 2012 www.ohiobar.org

by Keith L. Rucinski 18 Ohio Lawyer March/April 2012 www.ohiobar.org by Keith L. Rucinski 18 Ohio Lawyer March/April 2012 www.ohiobar.org When domestic relations cases involve financial woes for one or both parties, even a basic grasp of bankruptcy law can mean the difference

More information

May 2005 68 Tex. B. J. 442

May 2005 68 Tex. B. J. 442 May 2005 68 Tex. B. J. 442 DISBARMENTS On Oct. 4, 2004, Colin Kelly Kaufman, 58, of Corpus Christi was disbarred. Kaufman failed to hold funds belonging in whole or in part to clients or third parties

More information

INDIANA FALSE CLAIMS AND WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT. IC 5-11-5.5 Chapter 5.5. False Claims and Whistleblower Protection

INDIANA FALSE CLAIMS AND WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT. IC 5-11-5.5 Chapter 5.5. False Claims and Whistleblower Protection As amended by P.L.79-2007. INDIANA FALSE CLAIMS AND WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT IC 5-11-5.5 Chapter 5.5. False Claims and Whistleblower Protection IC 5-11-5.5-1 Definitions Sec. 1. The following definitions

More information

People v. Verce. 11PDJ076, consolidated with 12PDJ028. June 11, 2012. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge suspended Joseph James

People v. Verce. 11PDJ076, consolidated with 12PDJ028. June 11, 2012. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge suspended Joseph James People v. Verce. 11PDJ076, consolidated with 12PDJ028. June 11, 2012. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge suspended Joseph James Verce (Attorney Registration Number 12084), for a period

More information

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2015 WI 29 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Tina M. Dahle, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Tina M. Dahle,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 09-B-2680 IN RE: KENNER O. MILLER, JR. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 09-B-2680 IN RE: KENNER O. MILLER, JR. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS 05/21/2010 "See News Release 038 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 09-B-2680 IN RE: KENNER O. MILLER, JR. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM * This disciplinary

More information

People v. Webb. 13PDJ007. June 13, 2013. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Glenn L. Webb (Attorney Registration Number

People v. Webb. 13PDJ007. June 13, 2013. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Glenn L. Webb (Attorney Registration Number People v. Webb. 13PDJ007. June 13, 2013. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Glenn L. Webb (Attorney Registration Number 20023), effective July 18, 2013. Webb, an intellectual

More information

SLIP OPINION NO. 2014-OHIO-522 CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION

SLIP OPINION NO. 2014-OHIO-522 CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Gilbert, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-522.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal

More information

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Culbreath, 134 Ohio St.3d 24, 2012-Ohio-5031.]

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Culbreath, 134 Ohio St.3d 24, 2012-Ohio-5031.] [Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Culbreath, 134 Ohio St.3d 24, 2012-Ohio-5031.] COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. CULBREATH. [Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Culbreath, 134 Ohio St.3d 24, 2012-Ohio-5031.] Attorneys

More information

People v. Fischer. 09PDJ016. May 7, 2010. Attorney Regulation. Following a Sanctions Hearing, a Hearing Board suspended Erik G.

People v. Fischer. 09PDJ016. May 7, 2010. Attorney Regulation. Following a Sanctions Hearing, a Hearing Board suspended Erik G. People v. Fischer. 09PDJ016. May 7, 2010. Attorney Regulation. Following a Sanctions Hearing, a Hearing Board suspended Erik G. Fischer (Attorney Registration No. 16856) from the practice of law for a

More information

How to Complain About Lawyers and Judges in New York City

How to Complain About Lawyers and Judges in New York City How to Complain About Lawyers and Judges in New York City COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE JUNE 2012 NEW YORK CITY BAR ASSOCIATION 42 WEST 44 TH STREET, NEW YORK, NY 10036 INTRODUCTION The New York

More information

GOVERNMENT PROSECUTIONS AND QUI TAM ACTIONS

GOVERNMENT PROSECUTIONS AND QUI TAM ACTIONS GOVERNMENT PROSECUTIONS AND QUI TAM ACTIONS DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICIAL CODE DIVISION I. GOVERNMENT OF DISTRICT. TITLE 2. GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION. CHAPTER 3B. OTHER PROCUREMENT MATTERS. SUBCHAPTER

More information

In the Indiana Supreme Court

In the Indiana Supreme Court NO APPEARANCE FOR THE RESPONDENT ATTORNEYS FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION G. Michael Witte, Executive Secretary John P. Higgins, Staff Attorney Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE MATTER

More information

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2015 WI 2 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Emory H. Booker, III, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Emory

More information

LAWYER REGULATION. the Trustees determined

LAWYER REGULATION. the Trustees determined CLIENT PROTECTION FUND QUARTERLY REPORT The Client Protection Fund was created by the Board of Governors of the State Bar of Arizona in 1961 as required by a rule of the Supreme Court of Arizona. Its purpose

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, Supreme Court Case No. SC14-872 TFB File Nos. v. 2014-10,348 (12A) 2014-10,420 (12A) PAUL ANTHONY PYSCZYNSKI, 2014-10,658

More information

RULES FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINARY ENFORCEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

RULES FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINARY ENFORCEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA RULES FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINARY ENFORCEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA December 1, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA RULES

More information

MANAGING CLIENT TRUST ACCOUNTS RULES, REGULATIONS, AND TIPS

MANAGING CLIENT TRUST ACCOUNTS RULES, REGULATIONS, AND TIPS MANAGING CLIENT TRUST ACCOUNTS RULES, REGULATIONS, AND TIPS This booklet has been prepared by the Vermont Professional Responsibility Program as a guide for both new and experienced lawyers who have questions

More information

[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Witt, 103 Ohio St.3d 434, 2004-Ohio-5463.]

[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Witt, 103 Ohio St.3d 434, 2004-Ohio-5463.] [Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Witt, 103 Ohio St.3d 434, 2004-Ohio-5463.] CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. WITT. [Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Witt, 103 Ohio St.3d 434, 2004-Ohio-5463.] Attorneys at

More information

[Cite as Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Cameron, 130 Ohio St.3d 299, 2011-Ohio-5200.]

[Cite as Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Cameron, 130 Ohio St.3d 299, 2011-Ohio-5200.] [Cite as Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Cameron, 130 Ohio St.3d 299, 2011-Ohio-5200.] MEDINA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. CAMERON. [Cite as Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Cameron, 130 Ohio St.3d 299, 2011-Ohio-5200.]

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CIVIL MEDIATION PROGRAM GUIDELINES

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CIVIL MEDIATION PROGRAM GUIDELINES SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CIVIL MEDIATION PROGRAM GUIDELINES 1. Description. The Superior Court of California, County of Orange (Court), offers a voluntary civil mediation program for

More information

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Chasser, 124 Ohio St.3d 578, 2010-Ohio-956.]

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Chasser, 124 Ohio St.3d 578, 2010-Ohio-956.] [Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Chasser, 124 Ohio St.3d 578, 2010-Ohio-956.] COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. CHASSER. [Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Chasser, 124 Ohio St.3d 578, 2010-Ohio-956.] Attorneys at

More information

[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Gilbert, 138 Ohio St.3d 218, 2014-Ohio-522.]

[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Gilbert, 138 Ohio St.3d 218, 2014-Ohio-522.] [Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Gilbert, 138 Ohio St.3d 218, 2014-Ohio-522.] CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. GILBERT. [Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Gilbert, 138 Ohio St.3d 218, 2014-Ohio-522.] Attorney

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 112,059. In the Matter of PETER EDWARD GOSS, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 112,059. In the Matter of PETER EDWARD GOSS, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 112,059 In the Matter of PETER EDWARD GOSS, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed December 5, 2014.

More information

MINNESOTA FALSE CLAIMS ACT

MINNESOTA FALSE CLAIMS ACT . MINNESOTA FALSE CLAIMS ACT Sec. 24. [15C.01] DEFINITIONS. Subdivision 1. Scope. For purposes of this chapter, the terms in this section have the meanings given them. Subd. 2. Claim. "Claim" includes

More information

People v. J. Bryan Larson. 13PDJ031. October 18, 2013.

People v. J. Bryan Larson. 13PDJ031. October 18, 2013. People v. J. Bryan Larson. 13PDJ031. October 18, 2013. Following a sanctions hearing, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred J. Bryan Larson (Attorney Registration Number 31822). The disbarment took

More information

History: Add. 1971, Act 19, Imd. Eff. May 5, 1971; Am. 1976, Act 89, Imd. Eff. Apr. 17, 1976.

History: Add. 1971, Act 19, Imd. Eff. May 5, 1971; Am. 1976, Act 89, Imd. Eff. Apr. 17, 1976. MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS ACT Act 198 of 1965 AN ACT providing for the establishment, maintenance and administration of a motor vehicle accident claims fund for the payment of damages for injury to

More information

Civil Suits: The Process

Civil Suits: The Process Jurisdictional Limits The justice courts have exclusive jurisdiction or the authority to hear all civil actions when the amount involved, exclusive of interest, costs and awarded attorney fees when authorized

More information

TAKE-1 YOU AND YOUR LAWYER

TAKE-1 YOU AND YOUR LAWYER TAKE-1 YOU AND YOUR LAWYER XVIII AIRBORNE CORPS LEGAL ASSISTANCE OFFICE YOU AND YOUR LAWYER 1. Q. HOW DO I CHOOSE A PRIVATE ATTORNEY? A. There are many ways to select a private attorney if you do not have

More information

IN RE: STEPHEN L. TUNNEY NO. BD-2011-091 S.J.C. Order of Term Suspension entered by Justice Lenk on January 10, 2012. 1

IN RE: STEPHEN L. TUNNEY NO. BD-2011-091 S.J.C. Order of Term Suspension entered by Justice Lenk on January 10, 2012. 1 IN RE: STEPHEN L. TUNNEY NO. BD-2011-091 S.J.C. Order of Term Suspension entered by Justice Lenk on January 10, 2012. 1 Page Down to View Memorandum of Decision 2008: The Year in Ethics and Bar Discipline

More information

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2013 WI 20 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Joan M. Boyd, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Joan M. Boyd,

More information

Inquiry Concerning A Florida Lawyer

Inquiry Concerning A Florida Lawyer Inquiry Concerning A Florida Lawyer This pamphlet provides general information relating to the purpose and procedures of the Florida lawyer discipline system. It should be read carefully and completely

More information

2015 ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT

2015 ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT Law Offices of Vortman & Feinstein A Partnership of Professional Service Corporations 520 Pike Street Tower, Ste. 2250 Seattle, Washington 98101 Marlin L. Vortman (206) 223-9595 Larry B. Feinstein Fax:

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida PER CURIAM. No. SC11-2500 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, vs. EUGENE KEITH POLK, Respondent. [November 14, 2013] We have for review a referee s report recommending that Respondent

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. Misc. Docket AG. No. 13. September Term, 2005 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND WILLIAM M.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. Misc. Docket AG. No. 13. September Term, 2005 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND WILLIAM M. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG No. 13 September Term, 2005 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. WILLIAM M. LOGAN Bell, C.J. Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia Greene JJ.

More information

ADJUSTMENT OF DEBTS UNDER CHAPTER 13 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT CHAPTER 13 CASES

ADJUSTMENT OF DEBTS UNDER CHAPTER 13 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT CHAPTER 13 CASES ADJUSTMENT OF DEBTS UNDER CHAPTER 13 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT CHAPTER 13 CASES 1. What is a chapter 13 bankruptcy case and how does it work? A chapter 13 bankruptcy case is a proceeding under federal

More information

PUBLISHED AS A PUBLIC SERVICE BY THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL

PUBLISHED AS A PUBLIC SERVICE BY THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL This information has been prepared for persons who wish to make or have made a complaint to The Lawyer Disciplinary Board about a lawyer. Please read it carefully. It explains the disciplinary procedures

More information

INTRODUCTION TO SMALL CLAIMS COURT TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION TO SMALL CLAIMS COURT TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TO SMALL CLAIMS COURT TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TO SUE OR NOT TO SUE? HOW TO FILE A SMALL CLAIMS CASE WHERE TO FILE FILING FEE NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT COUNTERCLAIMS PREPARING FOR TRIAL

More information

REPORT, DECISION AND IMPOSITION OF SANCTION

REPORT, DECISION AND IMPOSITION OF SANCTION People v.lindemann, No.03PDJ066. June 2, 2004. Attorney Regulation. Following a sanctions hearing at which Respondent did not appear, the Hearing Board disbarred Respondent, attorney registration number

More information

SLIP OPINION NO. 2016-OHIO-469 CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION

SLIP OPINION NO. 2016-OHIO-469 CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Sweeney, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-469.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to

More information

20-28.3. Seizure, impoundment, forfeiture of motor vehicles for offenses involving impaired driving while license revoked or without license and insurance, and for felony speeding to elude arrest. (a)

More information

A GUIDE TO FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY PROTECTION UNDER CHAPTER 7 OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE

A GUIDE TO FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY PROTECTION UNDER CHAPTER 7 OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE A GUIDE TO FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY PROTECTION UNDER CHAPTER 7 OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE Michael R. Totaro Totaro & Shanahan P.O. Box 789 Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 310 573 0276 (v) 310 496 1260 (f) Mtotaro@aol.com

More information

2009 WI 103 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Terry L. Nussberger, Attorney at Law:

2009 WI 103 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Terry L. Nussberger, Attorney at Law: 2009 WI 103 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Terry L. Nussberger, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Terry

More information

NC General Statutes - Chapter 93A Article 2 1

NC General Statutes - Chapter 93A Article 2 1 Article 2. Real Estate Education and Recovery Fund. 93A-16. Real Estate Education and Recovery Fund created; payment to fund; management. (a) There is hereby created a special fund to be known as the "Real

More information

RETAINER AGREEMENT. Dibble & Miller, P.C.

RETAINER AGREEMENT. Dibble & Miller, P.C. RETAINER AGREEMENT Dibble & Miller, P.C. Print Client s First Name, Middle Initial and Last Name This Retainer Agreement is a binding contract between the Law Firm of Dibble & Miller, P.C. and you, the

More information

What Is Small Claims Court? What Types Of Cases Can Be Filed In Small Claims Court? Should I Sue? Do I Have the Defendant s Address?

What Is Small Claims Court? What Types Of Cases Can Be Filed In Small Claims Court? Should I Sue? Do I Have the Defendant s Address? SMALL CLAIMS COURT What Is Small Claims Court? Nebraska law requires that every county court in the state have a division known as Small Claims Court (Nebraska Revised Statute 25-2801). Small Claims Court

More information

4/23/2014. What is a Trust Account? Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct. Trust Accounts and IOLTA April 24, 2014

4/23/2014. What is a Trust Account? Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct. Trust Accounts and IOLTA April 24, 2014 Trust Accounts and IOLTA April 24, 2014 Indianapolis Bar Association Applied Professionalism Course Presented by: Howard I. Gross, CPA/ABV/CFF, CFP & Samuel M. Pollom, JD, CPA BGBC Partners, LLP 300 N.

More information

EARLY CARE & EDUCATION LAW UNIT WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT SMALL CLAIMS COURT

EARLY CARE & EDUCATION LAW UNIT WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT SMALL CLAIMS COURT EARLY CARE & EDUCATION LAW UNIT Publication Date: November 2013 WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT SMALL CLAIMS COURT In the operation of your child care business you may encounter problems which force you to

More information