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

Size: px
Start display at page:

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

Transcription

1 LAWYER REGULATION REINSTATED ATTORNEYS RICARDO A. BRACAMONTE Bar No ; File No Supreme Court No. SB D dated Dec. 17, 2009, Ricardo A. Bracamonte, 197 E. Fort Lowell Rd., Tucson, AZ, was reinstated to practice law. DONALD W. HUDSPETH Bar No ; File No Supreme Court No. SB D dated Dec. 14, 2009, Donald W. Hudspeth, 3030 N. Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ, was reinstated as a member of the State Bar. VICTORIA R. MIRANDA Bar No ; File No Supreme Court No. SB D/R dated Nov. 24, 2009, Victoria R. Miranda, 532 E. Lynwood St., Phoenix, AZ, was reinstated as a member of the State Bar. GUSTAVO TOLEDO Bar No ; File No Supreme Court No. SB R dated Dec. 2, 2009, Gustavo Toledo, 5128 E. Tamblo Dr., Phoenix, AZ, was reinstated as member of the State Bar. Mr. Toledo shall be placed on probation for one year and required to participate in the State Bar s Law Office Management Assistance Program and Member Assistance Program. SANCTIONED ATTORNEYS GREGORY L. DROEGER Bar No ; File No Supreme Court No. SB D dated Dec 29, 2009, Gregory L. Droeger, 274 W. View Point Dr., Nogales, AZ, was censured. He shall view the CLE Ten Deadly Sins Conflict and also was assessed the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceedings. In February 2000, Mr. Droeger drafted and witnessed a will for an elderly client. In January 2003, Mr. Droeger drafted and witnessed a codicil to the February 2000 will. In April 2003, Mr. Droeger drafted and witnessed a new will, which made an in-home caretaker a contingent beneficiary and personal representative of the client s estate. This will was destroyed soon afterwards, at the client s instruction. In December 2003, another lawyer drafted a new will for Mr. Droeger s client, without Mr. Droeger s knowledge. This BAR COUNSEL INSIDER Bar Counsel Insider provides practical and important information to State Bar members about ethics and the disciplinary process. File Retention File retention and the lawyer s ethical obligations in maintaining client files have long been problematic areas. A number of the Rules of Professional Conduct address aspects of the lawyer s duties, but no rule specifically addressed the issue of file retention. For example, ER 1.6 requires the lawyer to safeguard information relating to the representation; ER 1.15 provides that the lawyer must safeguard the client s property in the lawyer s possession; and ER 1.16 requires the lawyer, at the termination of the representation, to surrender documents to which the client is entitled. Prior Ethics Opinions have clarified the parts of the file to which the client is entitled, but not how long a client file must be retained at the conclusion of the representation. Ethics Opinion (www.myazbar.org/ethics/) provides guidance on this problematic issue. First, lawyers are encouraged to develop a file-retention policy tailored to the specific needs of the client and the lawyers practice and to communicate that policy to their clients in writing at the beginning of the representation. Although Ethics Opinion appeared to create a per se fiveyear retention period in certain types of cases, Op concluded that there is no bright-line rule for file retention in general. Although some files, in areas such as probate and estates, must be retained indefinitely, they are the exception. Storage space can constitute a great and ongoing expense. However, lawyers are advised not to purge the contents of files to minimize storage space needs without first consulting the client. The client s possible future need for the file, or any of its contents, must be a paramount consideration. Lawyers are advised that they may fulfill their ethical duties by tendering the entire file to the client at the end of the representation, if no statutory or substantive law requires the lawyer to retain the file and if doing so adequately protects the client s interests. Lawyers deciding to tender the entire file must assemble not only all paper documents, but also all electronic documents, so that the client receives the entire file. Lawyers may cease practice for a number of reasons, expected and unexpected, such as retirement, firm dissolution, or sudden illness. If a lawyer chooses to assume responsibility for another lawyer s files, the assuming lawyer is advised to follow the file-retention policy of the original attorney. In addition, the assuming lawyer should use reasonable diligence in attempting to contact the affected clients and advise them of the situation. A good resource on this issue is ABA Formal Opinion If a lawyer does not have a file-retention policy, the lawyer must make reasonable efforts to notify the client before destroying client files. There may be applicable law that requires the lawyer to preserve the file. If there is not, the lawyer is advised to retain the file for a period equal to the period for abandonment of personal property. Contact the State Bar s Ethics Hotline at (602) w w w. m y a z b a r. o r g / A Z A t t o r n e y M A R C H A R I Z O N A AT T O R N E Y 61

2 LAWYER REGULATION new will named the current in-home caretaker as personal representative of the estate. At this time, the in-home caretaker contacted Mr. Droeger with concerns about the client s competency. Mr. Droeger filed a Petition for Appointment of a Guardian for his client, alleging that the client was incompetent. Mr. Droeger s client passed away in February The same day the inhome caretaker retained Mr. Droeger to represent him as the personal representative for the estate. A family member of the client immediately contested the will and the appointment of the in-home caretaker as the personal representative. Mr. Droeger knew that the wills he drafted were at issue with the will drafted by the other lawyer. He was also aware that it was likely that he would be a necessary witness in the contest over that will. Mr. Droeger s representation of the in-home caretaker/personal representative caused a delay in the probate proceedings and caused additional cost to be incurred by the family member. One aggravating factor was found: substantial experience in the practice of law. Two mitigating factors were found: absence of a prior disciplinary record and remorse. Mr. Droeger violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., ERs 1.7, 3.7 and 8.4(d). TED J. DUFFY Bar No ; File No Supreme Court No. SB D dated Dec. 1, 2009, Ted J. Duffy, 301 W. Jefferson, Phoenix, AZ, was suspended for 30 days. He will be placed on probation for one year following reinstatement. Mr. Duffy will be required to complete 15 hours of CLE in ethics with no fewer than 10 hours in the area of trial ethics. He also was assessed the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceedings. Mr. Duffy was the lead prosecutor in a capital murder trial that spanned more than six months. During the course of the proceedings, Mr. Duffy violated court orders and made several arguments that drew multiple defense motions to dismiss and/or for mistrial. The motions were denied and the trial proceeded. Mr. Duffy failed to redact portions of a taped witness interview prior to it being played for the jury. During opening statements, Mr. Duffy made a misleading reference to DNA evidence that had not been timely disclosed to defense counsel. Also during opening statement, Mr. Duffy made reference to bloody footprints found at the crime scene and implied that they belonged to the defendant when he knew there was insufficient evidence to support that finding. Mr. Duffy also improperly made arguments during his opening statement. During the presentation of evidence, Mr. Duffy asked a witness in cross-examination about the defendant s other crimes, knowing that such an inquiry is forbidden by the evidence rules. He also characterized a witness s pretrial statement as the best evidence, which forced opposing counsel to seek and obtain from the judge an admonition to the jury to disregard that characterization. During closing argument, Mr. Duffy incorrectly argued to the jury that the reasonable doubt standard meant only that the jury needed to feel comfortable in their decision that the defendant was guilty. Finally, at various times during the trial, Mr. Duffy injected his personal knowledge and beliefs into the case, and engaged in improper vouching. Four aggravating factors were found: pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct and substantial experience in the practice of law. of a prior disciplinary record, absence of a dishonest or selfish motive and full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings. Mr. Duffy violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., ERs 3.1, 3.3(a)(1), 3.4(c) and (e) and 8.4(d). BRIAN E. FINANDER Bar No ; File Nos , Supreme Court No. SB D dated Jan. 5, 2010, Brian E. Finander, 2375 E. Camelback Rd., Phoenix, AZ, was suspended for one year effective Feb. 4, Upon reinstatement, he shall be placed on probation for two years and required to participate in the State Bar s Law Office Management Assistance Program and Member Assistance Program. He also shall pay restitution and was assessed the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceedings. In count one, Mr. Finander was hired to represent clients in a contract dispute. The written fee agreement stated that Mr. Finander would be paid an hourly fee and that he could hire individuals on contract basis to assist with the case at no charge to the clients. Mr. Finander hired another attorney to work on the case and increased his billing rate so that the clients actually paid for work done by Mr. Finander and the contract attorney. The monthly bills did not include a detailed explanation of the time spent on the case. Also, Mr. Finander did not inform his clients, in writing, that he changed his fee from hourly billing to hourly plus a contingent fee, nor did he obtain the client s consent to collect a contingent fee. A claim was also filed in federal court. When the federal case settled, Mr. Finander deposited the settlement check into his trust account without the endorsement or consent of his clients, then used the funds to pay his on-going legal fees. Near the conclusion of litigation on the state case, a settlement offer was made and Mr. Finander rejected the offer without first discussing it with his clients. During the course of representation, Mr. Finander routinely charged unreasonable fees and charged for work that was not performed. He failed to provide information to his clients or provided confusing or misleading information. 62 A R I Z O N A AT T O R N E Y M A R C H w w w. m y a z b a r. o r g / A Z A t t o r n e y

3 Upon termination, Mr. Finander did not review the fees charged and make adjustments. In count two, Mr. Finander represented an elderly, disabled client. The client executed a power of attorney that unknowingly gave Mr. Finander an ownership interest in his personal property. The client also gave Mr. Finander unsigned checks with the agreement that they would be used to pay legal fees. Mr. Finander failed to provide a detailed accounting regarding the fees paid via the checks. Mr. Finander was designated as beneficiary on another bank account and failed to advise his client to seek independent counsel regarding the matter. Additionally, the client asked Mr. Finander to prepare a will and provided specific instructions regarding the terms to be included. Mr. Finander drafted a will that was contrary to his client s instructions and which made him sole beneficiary of the estate. The representation was terminated and an accounting was requested. Mr. Finander did not review the fees charged to ensure they were reasonable and billed additional fees. Eight aggravating factors were found: prior disciplinary offenses, dishonest or selfish motive, pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct, vulnerability of victim, substantial experience in the practice of law and indifference to making restitution. There were no mitigating factors. Mr. Finander violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., ERs 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 1.7, 1.8(a) and (c), 1.15 and 8.4(c). JAMES DARRELL JENKINS Bar No ; File Nos , , , Supreme Court No. SB D By Arizona Supreme Court judgment and order dated Dec. 3, 2009, James Darrell Jenkins, 6315 E. Main St., Mesa, AZ, was suspended for 18 months. He will be placed on probation for two years upon reinstatement and shall participate in fee arbitration. He also was assessed the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceedings. In count one, Mr. Jenkins was paid $3,500 to investigate and enforce the provisions of his client s mother s trust. A third party paid the fee and Mr. Jenkins did not execute a written fee agreement, obtain his client s informed consent or explain the conflict created by the third-party payor. Mr. Jenkins filed a petition against another estate member regarding an accounting of trust funds then failed to reasonably communicate with his client regarding the status of the matter. Mr. Jenkins informed his client that he was initiating settlement proceedings with the trustee, which he was not authorized to do. The representation was terminated and the client retained new counsel. In count two, Mr. Jenkins was paid $206 to file probate for his client s deceased son. Part of the estate consisted of an automobile, which Mr. Jenkins took possession of and used to conduct personal business unrelated to the representation. Mr. Jenkins also attempted to buy the auto from the estate. Mr. Jenkins further impermissibly applied the deceased s insurance funds to his legal bill. The representation was terminated and the client retained new counsel who requested the case file and an accounting. Mr. Jenkins did not timely provide the requested information. In count three, Mr. Jenkins was hired to assist a client with her deceased daughter s estate. Mr. Jenkins negotiated and agreed to take the daughter s car as partial payment without advising his client, in writing, to seek independent legal advice about the transaction. Mr. Jenkins received funds regarding the deceased and was instructed to use the fund to pay creditors. Mr. Jenkins failed to do so and the representation was terminated. Mr. Jenkins failed to return funds collected during the representation. The client retained new counsel who requested an accounting, a refund of the retained funds and the case file. Mr. Jenkins failed to respond and a charge was filed with the State Bar. Mr. Jenkins failed to respond to the State Bar s request for information regarding the matter. In count four, Mr. Jenkins was paid $1,500 to prepare estate-plan- w w w. m y a z b a r. o r g / A Z A t t o r n e y M A R C H A R I Z O N A AT T O R N E Y 63

4 LAWYER REGULATION ning documents for a client who was hospitalized. During the representation, Mr. Jenkins took possession of his client s vehicle as partial payment of his fees without advising his client, in writing, to seek the advice of independent counsel concerning the transaction. The client, with Mr. Jenkins assistance, obtained a reverse mortgage on his home. After paying off the home, Mr. Jenkins deposited the remaining funds into his trust account. Mr. Jenkins contracted to have his client s home cleaned and renovated and hired his brother to perform some of the work. Mr. Jenkins also arranged for his daughters to perform caretaker duties for his client for a weekly fee. In neither instance did Mr. Jenkins advise his client or obtain written consent regarding the conflict of interest created by the employment of his brother and daughters. The representation was terminated and his client retained new counsel who requested an accounting, copies of all documents and identification cards in Mr. Jenkins possession and the return of any funds being held. After two requests, Mr. Jenkins submitted an accounting. Seven aggravating factors were found: prior disciplinary offenses, dishonest or selfish motive, pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, badfaith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, vulnerability of victims and substantial experience in the practice of law. Five mitigating factors were found: personal or emotional problems, delay in disciplinary proceedings, character or reputation, imposition of other sanctions and remoteness of prior offenses. Mr. Jenkins violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., ERs 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.7 and 1.8(f), 1.15, 1.16(d), 8.1and 8.4(a) and (d), and Rule 53(d) and (f), ARIZ.R.S.CT. VALERIE K. JUDGE-MEYERS Bar No ; File No Supreme Court No. SB D dated Dec. 29, 2009, Valerie K. Judge-Myers, 601 N. Alma School Rd., Chandler, AZ, was censured. She shall be placed on probation and required to participate in the State Bar s Member Assistance Program. She also was assessed the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceedings. Ms. Judge-Meyers was conditionally admitted to the practice of law on Sept. 18, 2008, with the requirement that she completely abstain from the consumption of alcohol, other drugs, or any mood altering chemicals for 18 months. Ms. Judge- Meyers tested positive for alcohol and admitted to consuming alcohol in December The circumstances surrounding the consumption related directly to Ms. Judge-Meyers being overwhelmed with adjusting to the dual responsibilities of new motherhood and a legal career. There were no aggravating factors. Four mitigating factors were found: absence of prior disciplinary record, absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, full and free disclosure to discipli- CAUTION! Nearly 16,000 attorneys are eligible to practice law in Arizona. Many attorneys share the same names. All discipline reports should be read carefully for names, addresses and Bar numbers. nary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings and remorse. Ms. Judge-Meyers violated Rule 53(g), ARIZ.R.S.CT. ROBERT R. JUNG Bar No ; File Nos , , Supreme Court No. SB D dated Dec. 3, 2009, Robert R. Jung, N. Tatum Blvd., Phoenix, AZ, was suspended for 60 days. Upon reinstatement, he will be placed on probation for two years and required to participate in the State Bar s Law Office Management Assistance Program and Member Assistance Program. He also shall pay restitution and was assessed the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceedings. In count one, Mr. Jung was hired to represent a client in a criminal matter. The client was incarcerated and his client s father paid Mr. Jung s $5,000 fee. Mr. Jung failed to execute a written fee agreement stating the scope of representation and stating that the fee had been paid by a third party. Mr. Jung performed some work on the matter and appeared at the initial pretrial conference. Thereafter, Mr. Jung failed to return telephone calls or communicate or visit his client and the representation was terminated. In count two, Mr. Jung was hired to represent a client in a DUI and was paid $2,500. Mr. Jung performed some work on the matter and made a court appearance. Thereafter, Mr. Jung failed to respond to the client s numerous requests for information regarding the case status and the representation was terminated. In count three, Mr. Jung was hired to represent a client in a criminal matter. His client s mother paid the $15,000 fee. The fee agreement contained a non-refundable fee statement but did not advise the client that Mr. Jung could be discharged at any time and all or part the fee may be refunded. The representation was terminated after Mr. Jung had done some initial work and appeared at an initial appearance hearing. In all counts, Mr. Jung failed to provide and accounting and refund of unearned fees. In all counts, a charge was filed with the State Bar and Mr. Jung did not respond to the State Bar s numerous attempts to contact him regarding the matters until a complaint was filed. Four aggravating factors were found: prior disciplinary offenses, pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses and substantial experience in the practice of law. of a dishonest or selfish motive and personal or emotional problems. Mr. Jung violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., ERs 1.4, 1.5, 1.15 and 1.16, and Rule 53(f), Ariz. R. Sup.Ct. WILLIAM M. LABUDA, JR. Bar No ; File Nos , , , , Supreme Court No. SB D dated Dec. 2, 2009, William M. Labuda, Jr., 2970 Camino del Rio, Bullhead City, AZ, was suspended for six months and one day and shall pay restitution. He also was assessed the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceedings. In count one, Mr. Labuda was paid $1,800 to represent a client in a child-custody matter. Mr. Labuda failed to appear for a scheduled meeting with his client and the representation was terminated. The client requested her file and an accounting of work and funds expended. The file was returned but Mr. Labuda did not provide a full accounting after numerous requests from the client. Mr. Labuda failed to file a motion to withdraw and failed to appear at a hearing to have his representation formally terminated. In count two, Mr. Labuda was paid $500 to represent a client in a child-custody matter. Mr. Labuda did not file any pleadings in the matter and failed to respond to his clients numerous attempts to contact him regarding the case status. The representation was terminated. In count three, Mr. Labuda was paid $2,500 to represent a client in a civil matter in The representation was terminated in April 2008 and Mr. Labuda failed to file a motion to withdraw. In May 2008, opposing counsel mailed a motion for partial summary judgment to Mr. Labuda. Mr. Labuda received a copy of the motion but did not file a response and the motion was granted. Opposing counsel also filed an order for attorney s fees and costs against Mr. Labuda s client. Mr. Labuda failed to file a response and the order was granted. In count four, Mr. Labuda was paid $5,000 to represent a client in a civil matter. The client made numerous attempts to contact Mr. Labuda regarding the matter. Mr. Labuda did not return a significant number of the phone calls. In count five, Mr. Labuda was paid $1,000 to represent a client in a matter against Bullhead City, Arizona. Mr. Labuda failed to timely file a notice of claim with the city or respond to his client s request for information on the matter. His client requested the return of her paperwork, but Mr. Labuda failed to comply. In all counts a complaint was filed with the State Bar and Mr. Labuda failed to respond to the State Bar s numerous requests for information regarding the matters. Three aggravating factors were found: pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses and badfaith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency. of prior disciplinary record, absence of a dishonest or selfish motive and personal or emotional problems. Mr. Labuda violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., ERs 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(d), 3.4(c), 8.1(b) and 8.4(d), and Rule 53(b), (d) and (f), ARIZ.R.S.CT. w w w. m y a z b a r. o r g / A Z A t t o r n e y M A R C H A R I Z O N A AT T O R N E Y 65

5 GARY L. LASSEN Bar No ; File No Supreme Court No. SB D dated Dec. 14, 2009, Gary L. Lassen, 2020 N. Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ, was censured. He will be placed on probation for one year and required to participate in the State Bar s Member Assistance Program. He also was assessed the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceedings. Mr. Lassen pled no contest and was found guilty of extreme DUI, endangerment and leaving the scene of an injury accident. He was placed on probation for three years beginning Nov. 7, 2006 and required to serve 10 days in the county jail on work release. There were no aggravating factors. Six mitigating factors were found: timely good-faith effort to make restitution or to rectify consequences of misconduct, full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings, character or reputation, delay in disciplinary proceedings, imposition of other penalties or sanctions and remorse. Mr. Lassen violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., ER 8.4(b), and Rule 53(h)(1) ARIZ.R.S.CT. MARK HYATT TYNAN Bar No ; File Nos , , , Supreme Court No. SB D dated April 29, 2008, Mark Hyatt Tynan, 7320 E. Shoeman Lane, Ste. 204, Scottsdale, AZ, was censured and placed on probation for two years. He is required to participate in the State Bar s Law Office Management Assistance Program and Member Assistance Program. Mr. Tynan also was assessed the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceedings and paid restitution. A four-count complaint was filed against Mr. Tynan but counts one and two were dismissed. In count three, Mr. Tynan was hired to represent a client in an appeal of a forcible entry and detainer judgment. The client, as directed by Mr. Tynan, filed a notice of appeal and paid the associated costs. Over the next five to six months, the client tried numerous times to contact Mr. Tynan without success. Mr. Tynan did not file any motions or take any action regarding the appeal and it was dismissed. The client filed a complaint with the State Bar. Mr. Tynan failed to respond to the State Bar s request for information. In count four, Mr. Tynan was paid $500 to represent a client in a bankruptcy proceeding. Over a 10-month period, the client left numerous messages for Mr. Tynan regarding her case without response. The bankruptcy case was dismissed because Mr. Tynan failed to file a statement of monthly income and a declaration regarding payment. The client filed a complaint with the State Bar and again Mr. Tynan failed to respond to the State Bar s request for information. Three aggravating factors were found: prior disciplinary offenses, multiple offenses, and substantial experience in the practice of law. of a dishonest or selfish motive, personal or emotional problems and remorse. Mr. Tynan violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., ERs 1.2, 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), (a)(4) and (b), and 8.1(b) and Rule 53(f), ARIZ.R.S.CT. CLIENT PROTECTION FUND QUARTERLY REPORT The Client Protection Fund was created by the Board of Governors of the State Bar of Arizona in 1961 as required by a rule of the Supreme Court of Arizona. Its purpose is to promote public confidence in the administration of justice and to preserve the integrity of the legal profession by reimbursing clients who have sustained losses caused by the dishonest conduct of lawyers admitted and licensed to practice in Arizona. The fund is a nonprofit charitable organization governed by a Declaration of Trust and administered by five volunteer trustees appointed by the Bar s Board of Governors. The Fund receives a yearly assessment from each active and inactive member of the State Bar (paid with the annual bar dues). In addition, the fund earns interest on its invested fund balance. More information about the fund is at Or contact the fund administrator at or by phone: (602) , toll free The following is a brief summary of claims paid in the third quarter of 2009: JOHN T. FRANKLIN Bar No ($2,000) 3 The claimant retained Franklin to represent her in a collection matter. The claimant states that Franklin performed only minimal legal work for her before he stopped returning calls and she lost contact with him. The Trustees found that Franklin did not perform any services of value and that his failure to refund unearned fees constituted dishonest conduct. The Fund paid the claimant $2,000. JAMES T. GREGORY Bar No (three claims totaling $5,224) 3 The Trustees reviewed three claims filed by former clients of Gregory, each of whom had retained Gregory to represent them in a divorce matter. Each claimant alleged that Gregory did little or no work and then ceased contact with them. For each claim, 68 A R I Z O N A AT T O R N E Y M A R C H w w w. m y a z b a r. o r g / A Z A t t o r n e y

6 CLIENT PROTECTION FUND the Trustees found that Gregory did not perform any services of value and that his failure to refund unearned fees constituted dishonest conduct. The Fund paid the claimants $2,000, $1,500, and $1,724, respectively. JASON J. KELLER Bar No ($2,750) 3 The claimant hired Keller to represent him in a DUI matter and contended that the only legal work Keller performed on his case was to appear at one pre-trial hearing. The Trustees found that Keller did not perform any services of value and that his failure to refund unearned fees constituted dishonest conduct. The Fund paid the claimant $2,750. CHRISTOPHER L. MAY Bar No ($2,250) 3 The claimant retained May to represent him in a criminal matter. The claimant states that May made one court appearance, and after that, the claimant had very little, if any, contact with May. The Trustees found that May did not perform any services of value and that his failure to refund unearned fees constituted dishonest conduct. The Fund paid the claimant $2,250. JOHN G. MORRISON Bar No ($22,834.78) 3 The claimants retained Morrison to represent them in a personal injury matter. The claimants state that Morrison settled their case without their knowledge, forged their signatures to endorse the check, and kept the money. Upon investigation, the Trustees concluded that Morrison had converted the settlement proceeds, and reimbursed the claimants $22, JESSE PAUL SUPLIZIO Bar No (two claims totaling $10,465) 3 The Fund received two claims from former clients of Suplizio, each of whom alleged that they had retained Suplizio to file trademark applications and that Suplizio had failed to perform any work and ceased communication with them. For each claim, the Trustees found that Suplizio did not perform any services of value and that his failure to refund unearned fees constituted dishonest conduct. The Fund paid the claimants $1,630, and $8,835, respectively. ANDREW TODD WIRTH Bar No (three claims totaling $14,500) For each of the following claims, the Trustees found that Wirth did not perform any services of value and that his failure to refund unearned fees constituted dishonest conduct. 3 The claimant in the first matter hired Wirth to represent him in a civil matter. The claimant CLIENT PROTECTION FUND states that the only legal work Wirth performed was several phone conversations and meetings. The Fund paid the claimant $5, The second claimant retained Wirth to represent her in a visitation rights matter. The claimant states that Wirth performed only minimal legal work for her before he was placed on Interim Suspension in a formal disciplinary proceeding and was unable to complete representation. The Fund paid the claimant $5, The claimant in the third matter hired Wirth to represent him in a criminal matter. The claimant states that Wirth provided him with approximately three hours of court time prior to his receiving a letter from Wirth stating that Wirth was disqualified from the practice of law. The Fund paid the claimant $4,500. The following is a brief summary of the claims paid in the fourth quarter of 2009: STEPHEN JOHN BOYDEN Bar No ($2,000) 3 The claimant retained Boyden to represent him in a civil matter. The claimant states that Boyden did not file the complaint or perform any other legal work and also did not respond to phone calls. The Trustees found that Boyden did not perform any services of value constituted dishonest conduct. The Fund paid the claimant $2,000. GEORGE R. BROWN Bar No ($10,370) 3 The claimant retained Brown to represent her in a wrongful death matter. The claimant contends that Brown abandoned her case after taking her money, and also that he did not respond to her s. She states that Brown did file the lawsuit, but did nothing else. The Trustees found that Brown did not perform any services of value and that his failure to refund unearned fees constituted dishonest conduct. The Fund paid the claimant $10,370. JOHN T. FRANKLIN Bar No (two claims totaling $2,699) 3 The claimant retained Franklin to represent her in a bankruptcy matter. The claimant alleges that Franklin did not properly file her bankruptcy paperwork and this caused the case to be dismissed. The Trustees found that Franklin did not perform any services of value constituted dishonest conduct. The Fund paid the claimant $1, The claimant, a homeowners association, retained Franklin to correspond with a homeowner and to expedite to trial a breach of homeowner regulations. The claimant states that Franklin provided no services, despite numerous requests by the claimants for proof of work done. The Trustees found that Franklin did not perform any services of value constituted dishonest conduct. The Fund paid the claimant $900. RAUL GARZA, JR. Bar No ($2,500) 3 The claimants retained Garza to represent them in a property damage matter. The claimants state that the only legal work Garza performed was to prepare a demand letter that was never sent. The Trustees found that Garza did not perform any services of value constituted dishonest conduct. The Fund paid the claimants $2,500. JAMES T. GREGORY Bar No (three claims totaling $8,500) For each of the following claims, the Trustees found that Gregory did not perform any services of value and that his failure to refund unearned fees constituted dishonest conduct. 3 The claimant in the first matter retained Gregory to represent her in a divorce matter. The claimant alleges that Gregory did no legal work for her, and also that she had no further contact with him after their initial meeting and he did not return her phone calls. The Fund paid the claimant $2, The second claimant retained Gregory to represent her in an immigration appeal matter. The claimant states that Gregory performed no legal work for her, and that she received no information or phone calls from Gregory after paying the retainer. The Fund paid the claimant $5, The claimant in the third matter retained Gregory to represent him in a DUI matter. The claimant states that once he paid Gregory s retainer, Gregory ceased all communication with him and did not appear at a scheduled court hearing. The Fund paid the claimant $1,000. WILLIAM L. TIFFT Bar No ($1,000) 3 The claimants retained Tifft to assist them with a foreclosure on a tax lien. The claimants state that after they retained Tifft, they had very little contact with him, they received no communications from him, and that they eventually contacted the court and were informed that Tifft had filed no paperwork on their behalf. The Trustees found that Tifft did not perform any services of value and that his failure to refund unearned fees constituted dishonest conduct. The Fund paid the claimant $1,000. w w w. m y a z b a r. o r g / A Z A t t o r n e y M A R C H A R I Z O N A AT T O R N E Y 69

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

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

More information

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

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

More information

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

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

More information

lawyer regulation SANCTIONED ATTORNEYS

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

More information

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

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

More information

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

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

More information

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

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

More information

LAWYER REGULATION. the Trustees determined

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

More information

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

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

More information

lawyer regulation INTERIM SUSPENSION SANCTIONED ATTORNEYS

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

More information

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

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

More information

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

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

More information

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

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

More information

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS

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

More information

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

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

More information

A Practical Guide to. Hiring a LAWYER

A Practical Guide to. Hiring a LAWYER A Practical Guide to Hiring a LAWYER A PRACTIAL GUIDE TO HIRING A LAWYER I. Introduction 3 II. When do you Need a Lawyer? 3 III. How to Find a Lawyer 4 A. Referrals 4 B. Lawyer Referral Service 5 C. Unauthorized

More information

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

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

More information

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

SANFORD J. EDELMAN Bar No. 004497; File No. 00-0216. By Supreme Court Judgment and Order SANCTIONED ATTORNEYS KENNETH P. BEMIS Bar No. 009404; File Nos. 97-2197 and 98-1794 dated May 7, 2002, Kenneth P. Bemis, 637 North 3rd Ave., Suite 5, Phoenix, AZ 85003, was censured by consent for violation

More information

LAWYER REGULATION. KELLY C. KNOP Bar No. 005594; File No. 06-6002. TROY L. BROWN Bar No. 016400; File No. 05-0098 Supreme Court No.

LAWYER REGULATION. KELLY C. KNOP Bar No. 005594; File No. 06-6002. TROY L. BROWN Bar No. 016400; File No. 05-0098 Supreme Court No. LAWYER REGULATION REINSTATED ATTORNEYS TROY L. BROWN Bar No. 016400; File No. 05-0098 Supreme Court No. SB-07-0011-D and order dated Dec. 12, 2007, Troy L. Brown, 3133 E. Harvard Ave., Gilbert, AZ 85234,

More information

November 2005. 68 Tex. B. J. 960

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

More information

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

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

More information

William Austin Watkins, you stand before the Disciplinary Board, your

William Austin Watkins, you stand before the Disciplinary Board, your BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL Petitioner v. WILLIAM AUSTIN WATKINS Respondent No. 99 DB 2012 Attorney Registration No. 52407 (Monroe

More information

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

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

More information

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO

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

More information

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

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

More information

In the Indiana Supreme Court

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

More information

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

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

More information

1. Death 2. Serious injury 3. Both (1) and (2) 4. Neither (1) nor (2) 0% 0% 0% 0%

1. Death 2. Serious injury 3. Both (1) and (2) 4. Neither (1) nor (2) 0% 0% 0% 0% A. Under GRPC 1.6, a lawyer MUST disclose information, even if gained in the professional relationship with a client and even if no law requires the lawyer to do so, if necessary to prevent: 1. Death 2.

More information

Disciplinary Summary

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

More information

Consumer Legal Guide. Your Guide to Hiring a Lawyer

Consumer Legal Guide. Your Guide to Hiring a Lawyer Consumer Legal Guide Your Guide to Hiring a Lawyer How do you find a lawyer? Finding the right lawyer for you and your case is an important personal decision. Frequently people looking for a lawyer ask

More information

A Guide for the General Practitioner: Ethical Issues When Evaluating, Selecting and Handling Personal Injury Case I.

A Guide for the General Practitioner: Ethical Issues When Evaluating, Selecting and Handling Personal Injury Case I. A Guide for the General Practitioner: Ethical Issues When Evaluating, Selecting and Handling Personal Injury Case I. Finding the Case: For the general practitioner of law, most personal injury claims come

More information

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

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

More information

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

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

More information

FILED November 9, 2007

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

More information

LAWYER REGULATION. Tucson, was reinstated effective the date of the order.

LAWYER REGULATION. Tucson, was reinstated effective the date of the order. LAWYER REGULATION REINSTATED ATTORNEYS CARMEN A. CHENAL Bar No. 009428; File No. 10-6006 Supreme Court No. SB-11-0034-R By Arizona Supreme Court order dated April 19, 2011, Carmen A. Chenal, Phoenix, was

More information

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

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

More information

October 2005. 68 Tex. B. J. 868

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

More information

RETAINER AGREEMENT. Dibble & Miller, P.C.

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

More information

Guidelines for Guardians ad Litem for Children in Family Court

Guidelines for Guardians ad Litem for Children in Family Court Guidelines for Guardians ad Litem for Children in Family Court Preamble The following are guidelines for attorneys and non-lawyer volunteers appointed as guardians ad litem for children in most family

More information

A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF MICHIGAN S ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE SYSTEM

A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF MICHIGAN S ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE SYSTEM 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

More information

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Patricia DuVall Storch, Misc. Docket AG No. 7, September Term, 2014. Opinion by Greene, J.

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Patricia DuVall Storch, Misc. Docket AG No. 7, September Term, 2014. Opinion by Greene, J. Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Patricia DuVall Storch, Misc. Docket AG No. 7, September Term, 2014. Opinion by Greene, J. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE In the present case, an attorney appointed as

More information

LOCAL BANKRUPTCY FORM 2016-2(a) IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LOCAL BANKRUPTCY FORM 2016-2(a) IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA LOCAL BANKRUPTCY FORM 2016-2(a) IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN RE: : CHAPTER 13 : : CASE NO. - -bk- : : Debtor(s) : RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES AGREEMENT

More information

Comparison of Newly Adopted Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct with ABA Model Rules

Comparison of Newly Adopted Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct with ABA Model Rules Comparison of Newly Adopted Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct with ABA Model Rules ARIZONA New rules as adopted by Arizona Supreme Court to be effective 12/1/03. Rules 1.13, 5.5 and 8.5 as amended

More information

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

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

More information

In the Indiana Supreme Court

In the Indiana Supreme Court ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT Pro se ATTORNEYS FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION G. Michael Witte, Executive Secretary Angie L. Ordway, Staff Attorney Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE MATTER

More information

January, 2006. 88 Tex.B.J. 72

January, 2006. 88 Tex.B.J. 72 January, 2006 88 Tex.B.J. 72 REINSTATEMENT Paul Lester Dickerson, 44, of Rockwall has petitioned the district court of Dallas County for reinstatement as a member of the State Bar of Texas. BODA Actions

More information

RULE 4-1.5 FEES AND COSTS FOR LEGAL SERVICES

RULE 4-1.5 FEES AND COSTS FOR LEGAL SERVICES RULE 4-1.5 FEES AND COSTS FOR LEGAL SERVICES (a) Illegal, Prohibited, or Clearly Excessive Fees and Costs. [no change] (b) Factors to Be Considered in Determining Reasonable Fees and Costs. [no change]

More information

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2014 WI 48 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Geneva E. McKinley, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Geneva

More information

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

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

More information

STATE BAR COURT OF CALIFORNIA HEARING DEPARTMENT LOS ANGELES. Case Nos.: 13-O-15838-DFM ) ) ) ) ) ) )

STATE BAR COURT OF CALIFORNIA HEARING DEPARTMENT LOS ANGELES. Case Nos.: 13-O-15838-DFM ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 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

More information

When You Need a Lawyer

When You Need a Lawyer When You Need a Lawyer When You Need a Lawyer Who needs a family lawyer? Sooner or later, almost everyone needs the advice and services of a lawyer. In our increasingly complex society, many situations

More information

People v. Miranda. 06PDJ010. July 10, 2007. Attorney Regulation. Following a Sanctions Hearing, a Hearing Board suspended Respondent Michael Thomas

People v. Miranda. 06PDJ010. July 10, 2007. Attorney Regulation. Following a Sanctions Hearing, a Hearing Board suspended Respondent Michael Thomas 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

More information

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 12-B-2701 IN RE: MARK LANE JAMES, II ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 12-B-2701 IN RE: MARK LANE JAMES, II ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS 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

More information

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

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

More information

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

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

More information

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

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

More information

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

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

More information

METLAW LEGAL SERVICES PLAN FACT SHEET

METLAW LEGAL SERVICES PLAN FACT SHEET METLAW LEGAL SERVICES PLAN FACT SHEET HOW TO GET LEGAL SERVICES To use your Legal Plan, visit our web site at www.legalplans.com or call Hyatt Legal Plans' Client Service Center at 1-800-821-6400. If you

More information

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

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

More information

APPLICATION TO THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY BAR/ INDIGENT DEFENSE PANEL (IDP)

APPLICATION TO THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY BAR/ INDIGENT DEFENSE PANEL (IDP) APPLICATION TO THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY BAR/ INDIGENT DEFENSE PANEL (IDP) 1. Read the enclosed summary of Program Description, Trial Requirements, Rules, Application, Agreement and Authorization and Release

More information

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

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

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee)

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

More information

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

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

More information

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

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

More information

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

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

More information

Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility

Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility Complaints and Investigations Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility 1500 Landmark Towers 345 St. Peter Street St. Paul, MN 55102-1218 (651) 296-3952

More information

MASSACHUSETTS CUSTOMIZED PRACTICE COVERAGE TITLE INSURANCE AGENT LIABILITY COVERAGE UNIT

MASSACHUSETTS CUSTOMIZED PRACTICE COVERAGE TITLE INSURANCE AGENT LIABILITY COVERAGE UNIT (hereinafter called "the Company") MASSACHUSETTS CUSTOMIZED PRACTICE COVERAGE TITLE INSURANCE AGENT LIABILITY COVERAGE UNIT In consideration of the payment of the premium, in reliance upon the statements

More information

Conflict of Interests When Representing a Beneficiary and the Trustee

Conflict of Interests When Representing a Beneficiary and the Trustee Conflict of Interests When Representing a Beneficiary and the Trustee In the administration of a trust or estate, an attorney may be in the position of representing both the trustee and the beneficiaries

More information

BASIC CRIMINAL LAW. Joe Bodiford. Overview of a criminal case Presented by: Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer

BASIC CRIMINAL LAW. Joe Bodiford. Overview of a criminal case Presented by: Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer BASIC CRIMINAL LAW Overview of a criminal case Presented by: Joe Bodiford Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer www.floridacriminaldefense.com www.blawgger.com THE FLORIDA CRIMINAL PROCESS Source: http://www.fsu.edu/~crimdo/cj-flowchart.html

More information

trial court and Court of Appeals found that the Plaintiff's case was barred by the statute of limitations.

trial court and Court of Appeals found that the Plaintiff's case was barred by the statute of limitations. RESULTS Appellate Court upholds decision that malpractice action barred September 2, 2015 The South Carolina Court of Appeals recently upheld a summary judgment obtained by David Overstreet and Mike McCall

More information

Prosecuting Attorneys Council of Georgia Transition Into Prosecution Program

Prosecuting Attorneys Council of Georgia Transition Into Prosecution Program Prosecuting Attorneys Council of Georgia Transition Into Prosecution Program Office: Name of Beginning Lawyer: Bar No. Name of Mentor: Bar No. MODEL MENTORING PLAN OF ACTIVITIES AND EXPERIENCES FOR STATE

More information

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

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 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

More information

Inquiry Concerning A Florida Lawyer

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

More information

Name That Sanction! Sex, Lies & Videotape Edition

Name That Sanction! Sex, Lies & Videotape Edition Name That Sanction! Sex, Lies & Videotape Edition Adam Kilgore is General Counsel for The Mississippi Bar where his duties include reviewing all Bar complaints, conducting investigations regarding Bar

More information

IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT, PREBLE COUNTY, OHIO

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

More information

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN OFFICE OF LAWYER REGULATION. Peter D. Bear is a Wisconsin-licensed attorney, whose address of record is 6516

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN OFFICE OF LAWYER REGULATION. Peter D. Bear is a Wisconsin-licensed attorney, whose address of record is 6516 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN OFFICE OF LAWYER REGULATION Public Reprimand with Consent Peter D. Bear 13-OLR- 1 Attorney at Law Peter D. Bear is a Wisconsin-licensed attorney, whose address of record is 6516

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF IMPERIAL. People v. Case No. Advisement of Rights, Waiver, and Plea Form

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF IMPERIAL. People v. Case No. Advisement of Rights, Waiver, and Plea Form SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF IMPERIAL People v. Case No. Advisement of Rights, Waiver, and Plea Form Vehicle Code 23152 Fill out this form if you wish to plead guilty or no contest to the charges

More information

TAKE-1 YOU AND YOUR LAWYER

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

More information

MISSOURI S LAWYER DISCIPLINE SYSTEM

MISSOURI S LAWYER DISCIPLINE SYSTEM MISSOURI S LAWYER DISCIPLINE SYSTEM Discipline System Clients have a right to expect a high level of professional service from their lawyer. In Missouri, lawyers follow a code of ethics known as the Rules

More information

METLAW LEGAL SERVICES PLAN FACT SHEET

METLAW LEGAL SERVICES PLAN FACT SHEET METLAW LEGAL SERVICES PLAN FACT SHEET HOW TO GET LEGAL SERVICES To use your Legal Plan, visit our web site at www.legalplans.com or call Hyatt Legal Plans' Client Service Center at 1-800-821-6400. Be prepared

More information

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

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

More information

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Ross, 107 Ohio St.3d 354, 2006-Ohio-5.]

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Ross, 107 Ohio St.3d 354, 2006-Ohio-5.] [Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Ross, 107 Ohio St.3d 354, 2006-Ohio-5.] COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. ROSS. [Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Ross, 107 Ohio St.3d 354, 2006-Ohio-5.] Attorneys at law Misconduct

More information

2008 WI 91 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against R. L. McNeely, Attorney at Law:

2008 WI 91 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against R. L. McNeely, Attorney at Law: 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,

More information

Your Guide to Illinois Traffic Courts

Your Guide to Illinois Traffic Courts Consumer Legal Guide Your Guide to Illinois Traffic Courts Presented by the Illinois Judges Association and the Illinois State Bar Association Illinois Judges Association Traffic courts hear more cases

More information

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

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

More information

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

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

More information

AN ACT. The goals of the alcohol and drug treatment divisions created under this Chapter include the following:

AN ACT. The goals of the alcohol and drug treatment divisions created under this Chapter include the following: ENROLLED Regular Session, 1997 HOUSE BILL NO. 2412 BY REPRESENTATIVE JACK SMITH AN ACT To enact Chapter 33 of Title 13 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, comprised of R.S. 13:5301 through 5304,

More information

ISBA Advisory Opinion on Professional Conduct

ISBA Advisory Opinion on Professional Conduct ISBA Advisory Opinion on Professional Conduct ISBA Advisory Opinions on Professional Conduct are prepared as an educational service to members of the ISBA. While the Opinions express the ISBA interpretation

More information

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

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

More information

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

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

More information

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Weiss, 133 Ohio St.3d 236, 2012-Ohio-4564.]

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Weiss, 133 Ohio St.3d 236, 2012-Ohio-4564.] [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Weiss, 133 Ohio St.3d 236, 2012-Ohio-4564.] DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. WEISS. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Weiss, 133 Ohio St.3d 236, 2012-Ohio-4564.] Attorneys Misconduct

More information

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

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

More information

REPORT, DECISION AND IMPOSITION OF SANCTION

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

More information

BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL : No. 891 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 Petitioner : : No. 79 DB 2002 v. : : Attorney Registration No. 60044

More information

ARBITRATION ADVISORY 1997-03 FEE ARBITRATION ISSUES INVOLVING CONTINGENCY FEES. August 22, 1997

ARBITRATION ADVISORY 1997-03 FEE ARBITRATION ISSUES INVOLVING CONTINGENCY FEES. August 22, 1997 ARBITRATION ADVISORY 1997-03 FEE ARBITRATION ISSUES INVOLVING CONTINGENCY FEES August 22, 1997 Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the Committee on Mandatory Fee Arbitration.

More information

APPEARANCE, PLEA AND WAIVER

APPEARANCE, PLEA AND WAIVER Guide to Municipal Court What Types of Cases Are Heard in Municipal Court? Cases heard in municipal court are divided into four general categories: Violations of motor vehicle and traffic laws Violations

More information

The N.C. State Bar v. Wood NO. COA10-463. (Filed 1 February 2011) 1. Attorneys disciplinary action convicted of criminal offense

The N.C. State Bar v. Wood NO. COA10-463. (Filed 1 February 2011) 1. Attorneys disciplinary action convicted of criminal offense The N.C. State Bar v. Wood NO. COA10-463 (Filed 1 February 2011) 1. Attorneys disciplinary action convicted of criminal offense The North Carolina State Bar Disciplinary Hearing Commission did not err

More information

Title 15 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE -Chapter 23 ALABAMA CRIME VICTIMS Article 3 Crime Victims' Rights

Title 15 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE -Chapter 23 ALABAMA CRIME VICTIMS Article 3 Crime Victims' Rights Section 15-23-60 Definitions. As used in this article, the following words shall have the following meanings: (1) ACCUSED. A person who has been arrested for committing a criminal offense and who is held

More information

INDIANA PARALEGAL ASSOCIATION CODE OF ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND RULES FOR ENFORCEMENT

INDIANA PARALEGAL ASSOCIATION CODE OF ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND RULES FOR ENFORCEMENT INDIANA PARALEGAL ASSOCIATION CODE OF ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND RULES FOR ENFORCEMENT PREAMBLE The Indiana Paralegal Association ("IPA") is a professional organization comprised of individual

More information