SANFORD J. EDELMAN Bar No ; File No 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