1 People v. Peter D. Nitschke. 14PDJ067. May 13, Following a sanctions hearing, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Peter D. Nitschke (Attorney Registration Number 34313). The disbarment took effect on June 17, Nitschke absconded with three-quarters of a million dollars from nine people, two of whom were elderly victims and many of whom were fellow churchgoers. He was convicted of nine felonies in California: two counts of theft from an elder, six counts of grand theft, and one count of fraud by insufficient fund check. The sentencing judge found that Nitschke committed these crimes with a high degree of callousness, planning, and sophistication, and sentenced Respondent to twelve years in prison. Nitschke s criminal misconduct violated Colo. RPC 8.4(b) (proscribing criminal acts that adversely reflect on a lawyer s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects).
2 SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE BEFORE THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE 1300 BROADWAY, SUITE 250 DENVER, CO Complainant: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO Case Number: 14PDJ067 Respondent: PETER D. NITSCHKE OPINION AND DECISION IMPOSING SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO C.R.C.P (c) On April 21, 2015, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge ( the Court ) held a sanctions hearing pursuant to C.R.C.P (b). Geanne R. Moroye appeared on behalf of the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel ( the People ). Peter D. Nitschke ( Respondent ) did not appear. The Court now issues the following Opinion and Decision Imposing Sanctions Pursuant to C.R.C.P (c). I. SUMMARY Respondent was convicted of nine felonies in California: two counts of theft from an elder, six counts of grand theft, and one count of fraud by insufficient fund check. The sentencing judge found that Respondent committed these crimes with a high degree of callousness, planning, and sophistication, and sentenced Respondent to twelve years in prison. The Court found, on default, that Respondent violated Colo. RPC 8.4(b), which proscribes criminal acts that adversely reflect on a lawyer s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects. Based on this misconduct, the Court now disbars Respondent. II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On August 15, 2014, the People filed a petition requesting Respondent s immediate suspension. On August 18, 2014, the Court issued an order directing Respondent to show cause why he should not be immediately be suspended from the practice of law. Respondent did not respond. This Court issued a report to the Colorado Supreme Court on September 5, 2014, recommending that Respondent be immediately suspended. The Colorado Supreme Court followed that recommendation and immediately suspended him on September 10,
3 The People filed their complaint in this matter on September 23, Respondent, however, did not file an answer. On November 10, 2014, the People filed a motion for default; when Respondent did not respond, the Court issued an Order Entering Default Pursuant to C.R.C.P (b) on December 8, Upon the entry of default, the Court deemed all facts set forth in the complaint admitted and all rule violations established by clear and convincing evidence. 2 The Court set the sanctions hearing for April 21, Respondent did not appear at the sanctions hearing. The People called no witnesses but offered exhibits 1-8, which the Court admitted into evidence. III. ESTABLISHED FACTS AND RULE VIOLATIONS The Court hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the factual background of this case, as fully detailed in the admitted complaint. 3 Respondent took the oath of admission and was admitted to the bar of the Colorado Supreme Court on October 29, 2002, under attorney registration number He is thus subject to the Court s jurisdiction in these disciplinary proceedings. 4 On February 3, 2014, Respondent entered a plea of guilty to nine felony counts in the matter of People v. Peter Davis Nitschke, case number 12HF2546, Superior Court of California, Orange County: Count 1: Theft from elder, in violation of 368(d) of the California Penal Code; Count 2: Theft from elder, in violation of 368(d) of the California Penal Code; Count 3: Grand theft, in violation of 487(a) of the California Penal Code; Count 4: Grand theft, in violation of 487(a) of the California Penal Code; Count 5: Grand theft, in violation of 487(a) of the California Penal Code; Count 6: Fraud by insufficient check, in violation of 476a(a) of the California Penal Code; Count 7: Grand theft, in violation of 487(a) of the California Penal Code; Count 8: Grand theft, in violation of 487(a) of the California Penal Code; Count 9: Grand theft, in violation of 487(a) of the California Penal Code; Enhancement: Property loss of over $200,000.00, under (a)(2) of the California Penal Code; and Enhancement: Aggravated white collar crime over $500,000.00, under (a)(2) of the California Penal Code. 1 On September 24, 2014, the People sent the complaint and citation by certified mail to Respondent s registered business address of Bake Parkway, Suite 105, Irvine, California See Ex. 1. The People also mailed the complaint and citation to Respondent s known current address at the time: CDCR #AU3158, D2-216U, WSTRC, P.O. Box 7700, Wasco, California See C.R.C.P (b); People v. Richards, 748 P.2d 341, 346 (Colo. 1987). 3 See exhibit 2, the People s complaint, for further detailed findings of fact. 4 See C.R.C.P (b). 3
4 Respondent was represented by counsel, signed a written waiver of his constitutional rights, admitted that he committed the crimes charged, and offered a factual basis for his guilty plea as to all nine counts. 5 On June 20, 2014, a judgment of conviction was entered, and Respondent was sentenced to twelve years in California state prison. 6 The court stated that Respondent s crimes demonstrated a high degree of callousness and a high degree of planning and sophistication. 7 At his sentencing, Respondent was ordered to pay more than $750, in restitution to his victims. Through these actions, Respondent violated Colo. RPC 8.4(b) (a lawyer shall not commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects) and C.R.C.P (b) (grounds for discipline include any criminal act that demonstrates an attorney s dishonesty). IV. SANCTIONS The American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1991 & Supp. 1992) ( ABA Standards ) and Colorado Supreme Court case law guide the imposition of sanctions for lawyer misconduct. 8 When imposing a sanction after a finding of lawyer misconduct, the Court must consider the duty violated, the lawyer s mental state, and the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer s misconduct. These three variables yield a presumptive sanction that may be adjusted based on aggravating and mitigating factors. ABA Standard 3.0 Duty, Mental State, and Injury Duty: By engaging in criminal conduct that included fraud, misappropriation, and theft, Respondent violated his duty to the public to conduct himself with integrity. As the ABA Standards explain, The public expects the lawyer to be honest and to abide by the law; public confidence in the integrity of officers of the court is undermined when lawyers engage in illegal conduct. 9 Mental State: Respondent acted intentionally when he converted money and engaged in criminal activity. As mentioned above, Respondent s sentencing judge deemed Respondent s acts to have been carried out with a high degree of callousness and a high degree of planning and sophistication Ex Ex Ex See In re Roose, 69 P.3d 43, (Colo. 2003). 9 ABA Standard Ex. 3. 4
5 Injury: Referencing victim impact statements used in Respondent s sentencing, the People recited at the sanctions hearing how Respondent s defalcations harmed five separate groups of individuals. 11 The first four counts on which Respondent was convicted involved theft of money bequeathed by Clara Jane Clayton on her passing in 2010 to Diane Clayton and Virginia Cottle both elderly as well as to David Cottle and Allison Broderick. All four victims were related. Respondent, who met and befriended these victims at church, convinced them that their inheritance would have to pass through probate. He assured them he would take care of any necessary probate action and safeguard their funds in his trust account, making the money available to them whenever they needed it. When Diane Clayton was diagnosed with lung cancer, she requested that Respondent provide her money from her portion of the inheritance just over $365, to pay for medical treatments. Respondent promised to provide her the funds but never did so. Likewise, when Virginia Cottle began to experience symptoms of dementia, her family asked Respondent to turn over her portion of the inheritance more than $318, to fund her in-home care. Respondent pledged that he would do so, but he did not. With insufficient funds to pay for in-home care, Virginia Cottle s family was forced to place her in a nursing home. Both Broderick and David Cottle, grandchildren of Clara Jane Clayton who were promised $10, each, never saw a penny of the bequest. Respondent caused all four of these victims serious pecuniary and emotional injury. Respondent also caused Katherine and Robert McDaniel serious financial injury. The McDaniels were referred to Respondent for legal work, but he persuaded them to entrust him with more than $30, of their funds to pursue an investment opportunity on their behalf. The McDaniels never heard from Respondent again. They hired another lawyer to recover their funds from Respondent, who promised to refund their money. Respondent made just one payment, however, and that check bounced. David Van Skyrock met Respondent at church and hired him for representation in a civil suit. Van Skyrock gave Respondent $1, to do work on his matter, but Respondent never performed any work or refunded the money. Respondent thereby caused Van Skyrock financial injury. Respondent was hired by Vicki Salvin to represent her in a suit against her homeowners association for mold remediation. Respondent told Salvin that her case had settled for $22,500.00, out of which $3, was to be paid to a contractor. Respondent paid the contractor, but he never forwarded to Salvin her portion of the settlement proceeds, which totaled approximately $11, Salvin sustained serious financial injury due to Respondent s misconduct. Finally, David Maffei retained Respondent to assist him with a foreclosure action, paying him $7, Respondent assured Maffei that he would stop the foreclosure. 11 See also Ex. 5. 5
6 Instead, Maffei did not again hear from Respondent and never received a refund of his money. Maffei was seriously injured by Respondent s malfeasance. ABA Standards Presumptive Sanction Disbarment is the presumptive sanction under ABA Standard 5.11(a), which governs a lawyer s serious criminal conduct that involves, among other things, misrepresentation, misappropriation, or theft, as is the case here. ABA Standard 9.0 Aggravating and Mitigating Factors Aggravating circumstances include any considerations or factors that may warrant an increase in the degree of discipline to be imposed, while mitigating circumstances may justify a reduction in the severity of the sanction. 12 In this case, five aggravating factors are present. First, Respondent had a dishonest and selfish motive. He knowingly converted client money and was ordered to pay restitution of over $750, in his criminal proceeding. 13 Second, that Respondent engaged in criminal conduct against five separate groups of victims, leading to nine separate felony counts, evidences a clear-cut pattern of misconduct. 14 Third, two of Respondent s victims Diane Clayton and Virginia Cottle were elderly and in poor health, and therefore were vulnerable. 15 Fourth, Respondent was admitted to the Colorado bar in 2002, and he thus has substantial experience in the practice of law. 16 Finally, Respondent s failure to pay restitution to his victims, as ordered by the California tribunal, reflects his indifference to making restitution. 17 Because Respondent did not participate in the disciplinary proceeding, the Court is aware of only two mitigating factors his lack of a prior disciplinary record 18 and the imposition of criminal penalties in California 19 which the Court considers in mitigation. Analysis Under ABA Standards and Colorado Case Law The Court is aware of the Colorado Supreme Court s directive to exercise discretion in imposing a sanction and to carefully apply aggravating and mitigating factors, 20 mindful that 12 See ABA Standards 9.21 & ABA Standard 9.22(b). 14 ABA Standard 9.22(c). 15 ABA Standard 9.22(h). In recognition of the vulnerability of these victims, two of Respondent s nine felony counts charged theft from an elder in violation of 368(d) of the California Penal Code. 16 ABA Standard 9.22(i). 17 ABA Standard 9.22(j). 18 ABA Standard 9.32(a). 19 ABA Standard 9.32(k). 20 See In re Attorney F., 285 P.3d 322, 327 (Colo. 2012); In re Fischer, 89 P.3d 817, 822 (Colo. 2004) (finding that a hearing board had overemphasized the presumptive sanction and undervalued the importance of mitigating factors in determining the needs of the public). 6
7 individual circumstances make extremely problematic any meaningful comparison of discipline ultimately imposed in different cases. 21 The Court has no trouble concluding that Respondent should and must be disbarred. Colorado case law illustrates that disbarment is the fitting sanction when a lawyer commits a serious felony involving theft, which necessarily involves a dishonest motive. 22 Those cases, coupled with the presumptive sanction and the preponderance of aggravating factors, all clearly point toward disbarment here. That Respondent callously stole over three-quarters of a million dollars from nine people, two of whom were elderly victims and many of whom were fellow churchgoers, makes obvious that Respondent has destroyed the element of trust essential to the attorney-client relationship, has severely compromised the public s confidence in attorneys, and cannot be trusted to serve as a member of the legal profession. V. CONCLUSION This case presents one of most egregious instances of attorney misconduct the Court has yet seen: a blatant theft of vast sums of money from multiple victims. Respondent has caused nine people substantial harm and has done real damage to the profession s image. The Court readily imposes the presumptive sanction of disbarment. VI. ORDER The Court therefore ORDERS: 1. PETER D. NITSCHKE, attorney registration number 34313, is DISBARRED from the practice of law IN THE STATE OF COLORADO. The DISBARMENT SHALL take effect only upon issuance of an Order and Notice of Disbarment Respondent SHALL promptly comply with C.R.C.P (a)-(c), concerning winding up of affairs, notice to parties in pending matters, and notice to parties in litigation. 21 In re Attorney F., 285 P.3d at 327 (quoting In re Rosen, 198 P.3d 116, 121 (Colo. 2008)). 22 See, e.g., In re DeRose, 55 P.3d 126, 128 (Colo. 2002) (disbarring an attorney who pleaded guilty to felony charges after intentionally structuring financial transactions to avoid federal reporting requirements); People v. Nearen, 952 P.2d 371, 372 (Colo. 1998) (disbarring an attorney who pleaded guilty to two felonies of securities fraud and money laundering); People v. Jackson, 943 P.2d 450, 457 (Colo. 1997) (disbarring an attorney who engaged in fraudulent real estate transactions); People v. Odom, 941 P.2d 919, (Colo. 1997) (disbarring an attorney who knowingly removed from the State of Colorado an automobile subject to a security interest); People v. Viar, 848 P.2d 934, 936 (Colo. 1993) (disbarring an attorney who pleaded guilty to bribery, a class three felony); People v. Schwartz, 814 P.2d 793, 794 (Colo. 1991) (disbarring an attorney who was convicted of bankruptcy fraud); People v. Goens, 803 P.2d 480, 483 (Colo. 1990) (disbarring an attorney who forged estate representatives signatures and converted funds from an estate for his own use); People v. Brown, 726 P.2d 638, 639 (Colo. 1986) (disbarring an attorney who was convicted of forgery, a class four felony). 23 In general, an order and notice of sanction will issue thirty-five days after a decision is entered pursuant to C.R.C.P (b) or (c). In some instances, the order and notice may issue later than thirty-five days by operation of C.R.C.P (h), C.R.C.P. 59, or other applicable rules. 7
8 3. Respondent SHALL file with the Court, within fourteen days of issuance of the Order and Notice of Disbarment, an affidavit complying with C.R.C.P (d). 4. The parties MUST file any application for stay pending appeal with the Court on or before Wednesday, June 3, No extensions of time will be granted. Any response thereto MUST be filed within seven days, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. 5. A statement of costs was admitted at the hearing as exhibit 8. That statement reflects a total of $ expended by the People as costs and expenses in this matter. Respondent SHALL pay the costs of these proceedings. On or before Wednesday, June 10, 2015, Respondent SHALL pay $ to: Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel Attn: Geanne Moroye 1300 Broadway, Suite 500 Denver, CO DATED THIS 13 th DAY OF MAY, WILLIAM R. LUCERO PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE Copies to: Geanne R. Moroye Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel Peter D. Nitschke Respondent Bake Parkway, Suite 105 Irvine, CA Peter D. Nitschke, CDCR #AU3158 A01-12U P.O. Box 2500 Susanville, CA Attn: CC1 McConnell Peter D. Nitschke Respondent Nitschke Law Group Via Via First-Class Mail Via First-Class Mail Via First-Class Mail 8
9 134 Strawflower Street Ladera Ranch, CA Christopher T. Ryan Colorado Supreme Court Via Hand Delivery 9
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
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
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
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
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
People v. Garrow, No. 00PDJ068, 9.25.01. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge and Hearing Board suspended the Respondent, William F. Garrow, from the practice of law for a period of one
People v. David Auer. 14PDJ006. June 18, 2014. Following a sanctions hearing, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred David Auer (Oklahoma Attorney Registration Number 14672). The disbarment took effect
People v. Miranda. 06PDJ010. July 10, 2007. Attorney Regulation. Following a Sanctions Hearing, a Hearing Board suspended Respondent Michael Thomas Miranda (Attorney Registration No. 24702) from the practice
People v. Costa, No.02PDJ012. 10.16.02. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved the parties Conditional Admission of Misconduct and disbarred Respondent, Maria R. Costa, attorney
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
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
People v. Albright, No.03PDJ069. 10/29/03. Attorney Regulation. Following a sanctions hearing at which Respondent did not appear, the Hearing Board disbarred Respondent, attorney registration number 14467,
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2012 WI 123 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Thomas E. Bielinski, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Thomas
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
People v. Graham, 07PDJ064. July 31, 2008. Attorney Regulation. Following a hearing pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.18, a Hearing Board suspended Raymond Anson Graham (Attorney Registration No. 14106) from the
2012 WI 48 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: 2011AP778-D In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Aaron J. Rollins, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant,
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
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
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL : No. 734, Disciplinary Docket No. 3 Petitioner : Supreme Court : : No. 52 DB 2002 Disciplinary Board v.
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
People v. Ra shadd, 04PDJ023. March 10, 2005. Attorney Regulation. Upon conclusion of a sanctions hearing, the Hearing Board disbarred Respondent Giorgio D. Ra shadd (Registration No. 30417) from the practice
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
6-" BEFORE THE BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of the Accusation Against: KENNETH JOEL LEIB 4707 Medford Street Fair Oaks, CA 95628 certificate Number
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
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORAD0 CASE NO.: 99PDJ108 ORIGINAL PROCEEDING BEFORE THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE OPINION AND ORDER REINSTATING TIMOTHY PAUL McCAFFREY S LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW TIMOTHY PAUL
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.
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2015 WI 38 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: 2014AP2906-D In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jon Evenson, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v.
[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
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
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2012 WI 122 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Naomi E. Soldon, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Naomi E.
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2014 WI 2 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Steven T. Berman, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Steven T.
People v. Tamika Monique Palmer. 14PDJ049. March 26, 2015. Following a sanctions hearing, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Tamika Monique Palmer (Attorney Registration Number 42046). The disbarment
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT PANEL A IN RE: DONALD W. COLSON ARKANSAS BAR ID No. 2005166 CPC Docket No. 2013-008 FINDINGS AND ORDER Donald W. Colson is an attorney licensed
Hugen v. People, 08PDJ036. December 17, 2008. Attorney Regulation. Following a Readmission Hearing, a Hearing Board granted a Petition for Readmission filed by Brian Keith Hugen and readmitted him to the
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Smithern, 125 Ohio St.3d 72, 2010-Ohio-652.] AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. SMITHERN. [Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Smithern, 125 Ohio St.3d 72, 2010-Ohio-652.] Attorneys at law Multiple
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
10/14/2011 "See News Release 066 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 11-B-1631 IN RE: MAZEN YOUNES ABDALLAH ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM * This disciplinary
Supreme Court of Louisiana FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #031 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Per Curiams handed down on the 27th day of May, 2016, are as follows: PER CURIAM: 2016-B
FILED MARCH 16, 2015 STATE BAR COURT OF CALIFORNIA HEARING DEPARTMENT LOS ANGELES In the Matter of ANDREW MacLAREN STEWART, Member No. 204170, A Member of the State Bar. Case Nos.: 13-O-15838-DFM DECISION
People v. Cardwell, No. 00PDJ074. 7/11/01. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge and Hearing Board suspended Respondent, Jerry E. Cardwell from the practice of law for a period of three
People v. Emily E. Cohen. 15PDJ045. January 11, 2016. Following a hearing, a hearing board disbarred Emily E. Cohen (attorney registration number 41972). The disbarment took effect March 8, 2016. Cohen
Rule 214. Attorneys convicted of crimes. (a) An attorney convicted of a [serious] crime shall report the fact of such conviction within 20 days to the [Secretary of the Board] Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
People v. Cozier, No. 02PDJ106, 08.08.03. Attorney Regulation. The Hearing Board disbarred Respondent, Clifford G. Cozier, attorney registration number 20550 from the practice of law following a sanctions
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL : No. 399, Disciplinary Docket Petitioner : No. 3 Supreme Court : v. : No. 30 DB 1998 Disciplinary Board
People v. Parsley, 04PDJ058. March 10, 2005. Attorney Regulation. Upon conclusion of a sanctions hearing, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Respondent Jeffrey A. Parsley (Registration No. 8069)
2008 WI 91 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against R. L. McNeely, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. R. L. McNeely,
03/01/2013 "See News Release 012 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 12-B-2701 IN RE: MARK LANE JAMES, II ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM This disciplinary
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
Issues Involving the Unauthorized Practice of Law Colorado Bar Association Paralegal Committee September 17, 2008 James C. Coyle, Deputy Regulation Counsel Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation
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,
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,
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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 108,649 In the Matter of STEVEN C. ALBERG, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed February 22, 2013.
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2013 WI 36 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Joseph M. Engl, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Joseph M.
Application for Admission to Limited Practice as Attorney Under APR 8(g) Exception for Military Lawyers APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS: Enclosed please find a copy of Rule 8(g) of the Admission to Practice Rules.
People v. Essay, No. 99PDJ125 (consolidated with 00PDJ035). Attorney Registration. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge and Hearing Board disbarred Respondent, Edward J. Essay, Jr., from the practice of law.
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
[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.]
-tiw~~ "'~ "" NORTH CAROLIN i;;" of. ~ BEFORE THE WAKE COUNTY 1:::::, c! P 201.@IS~'L1NARY HEARING COMMISSION ~ v~ji..s,=-= OF THE ~ DJ.jC D N J TH CAROLINA STATE BAR,~\ ~ 09 DHC 5 >?1/ 11 /?,., l C\ c:,,;/,
11/20/2009 "See News Release 073 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 09-B-1795 IN RE: DEBORAH HARKINS BAER ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM * This disciplinary
1 2 BEFORE THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AUTHORITY STATE OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 6 7 8 In the Matter of the Emergency Medical Technician- Paramedic License Held by: DALE R. HILLER License No. P25482 Respondent.
Supreme Court In the Matter of Daniel J. Saxton. No. 2014-64-M.P. O R D E R This disciplinary matter is before us pursuant to Article III, Rule 6(d) of the Supreme Court Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: ) ) MICHAEL A. CEBALLOS ) Bar Docket No. 329-00 ) Respondent. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL
Boyle v. People, Case No. 02PDJ067, June 16, 2004, nunc pro tunc May12, 2004. Attorney Regulation. Daniel F. Boyle, attorney registration no. 07152, was reinstated to the practice of law following a full
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. COX. [Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Cox (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 218] Attorneys at law Misconduct Permanent disbarment Engaging in a series of actions that demonstrate contempt
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
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF MICHIGAN S ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE SYSTEM HISTORY Michigan s system for attorney discipline has existed in its current form since 1978. With the creation of the State Bar of Michigan
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Peter Tom, Justice Presiding, Angela M. Mazzarelli Eugene Nardelli Luis A. Gonzalez Bernard J. Malone, Jr., Justices. ---------------------------------------x
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 105,258 In the Matter of BART A. CHAVEZ, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed April 8, 2011. Published
OVERVIEW OF BAR DISCIPLINE DIVERSION PROGRAMS (Prepared May 23, 2007) 1 Introduction The following information provides an overview of the states' attorney discipline diversion programs that address alcohol
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
Chapter 153 2013 EDITION Violations and Fines VIOLATIONS (Generally) 153.005 Definitions 153.008 Violations described 153.012 Violation categories 153.015 Unclassified and specific fine violations 153.018
Tuesday 18th November, 2008. On March 19, 2008 came the Virginia Board of Bar Examiners, by W. Scott Street, III, its Secretary-Treasurer, and presented to the Court a petition, approved by the Virginia
Supreme Court In the Matter of Thomas J. Howard, Jr. No. 2015-360-M.P. O R D E R This matter is before the court pursuant to a petition for reciprocal discipline filed by this Court s Disciplinary Counsel
Summary of Opinion. People v. Berkley, No. 99PDJ073, 12/7/1999. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge and Hearing Board reinstated Petitioner, Martin J. Berkley to the practice of law effective
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.
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
Elinoff v. People, No. 03PDJ048. 11/14/03. Attorney Regulation. The Hearing Board reinstated Kallman S. Elinoff, attorney registration number 18677 from the practice of law in the State of Colorado. SUPREME
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
BEFORE THE BOARD OF DISCIPLINARY APPEALS APPOINTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN THE MATTER OF $ ROBERT EUGENE EASLEY $ CAUSE NO. 4677s srate BAR CARD NO. 24036514 $ DEFAULT JUDGMENT OF DISBARMENT On
People v. Rhodes, 04PDJ044. February 7, 2005. Attorney Regulation. Upon conclusion of a sanctions hearing, the Hearing Board disbarred Respondent Bradley S. Rhodes (Registration No. 29960) from the practice
From the office of the Rice County Attorney: Adult Plea Negotiation Guidelines Revision June, 2004 1. These guidelines apply to any adult felony defendant case prosecuted by this office, which is not disposed
People v. Gilbert, 06PDJ016. March 26, 2007. Attorney Regulation. Following a hearing pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.18, a Hearing Board publicly censured Robert Edward Gilbert (Attorney Registration No. 13603).