lawyer regulation INTERIM SUSPENSION SANCTIONED ATTORNEYS

Transcription

1 INTERIM SUSPENSION WILLIAM J. DOWNEY Bar No ; File Nos , and dated March 26, 2003, William J. Downey, Phoenix, Arizona, was placed on interim suspension pursuant to Rule 52(c), Ariz.R.S.Ct., until further order of the Court. ROBERT SUZENSKI Bar No ; File No dated March 20, 2003, Robert Suzenski, Phoenix, Arizona, was placed on interim suspension pursuant to Rule 52(c), Ariz.R.S.Ct., until final disposition of all pending proceedings. SANCTIONED ATTORNEYS NAIDA B. AXFORD Bar No ; File No dated Oct. 31, 2002, Naida B. Axford, Two N. Central, Phoenix, AZ 85004, was suspended for one year for the unauthorized practice of law while on MCLE suspension. Ms. Axford was ordered to pay the State Bar s costs and expenses of $3,064.98, with Ms. Axford was suspended from the practice of law on Feb. 11, 1997, for failure to comply with MCLE requirements. On Oct. 10, 2000, Ms. Axford was suspended for six months and a day in a separate discipline case. In January 2000, while on suspension for failure to comply with MCLE, Ms. Axford practiced law by drafting a petition for review for a client that was filed with the Supreme Court. In addition, throughout the disciplinary proceedings, Ms. Axford knowingly refused to cooperate with, and failed to respond to, the State Bar. Six aggravating factors found prior discipline, dishonest or selfish motive, pattern of misconduct, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary process, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of her conduct and substantial experience in the practice of law. There was one mitigating factor found: personal or emotional problems. Ms. Axford violated ERs 3.4(c), 5.5(c), 8.1(b) and 8.4(d) and Rules 51(e), (f), (h), (i) and (k), LEONIDAS G. CONDOS Bar No ; File No dated Dec. 26, 2002, Leonidas G. Condos, 4201 S. Alma School Rd., Mesa, AZ 85210, was censured by consent and placed on one year s probation, to include participation in the Member Assistance Program and attending the Trust Account Ethics Enhancement Program. Mr. Condos must pay the State Bar s costs and expenses of $683.30, with Mr. Condos represented a client in Indiana in a personal injury matter. Mr. Condos settled the claims and was obligated to hold $25,000 from the settlement to pay a medical provider. Between April and July 1997, Mr. Condos attempted to pay the provider, but each time the check was returned for insufficient funds. Upon discovery, Mr. Condos obtained a cashier s check for the debt. On at least six occasions Mr. Condos Indiana trust account balance fell below $25,000. Employee embezzlement was the cause of the account deficiencies. One aggravating factor was found: substantial experience in the practice of law. Five disciplinary record, personal or emotional problems, timely good faith effort to make restitution or rectify the consequences of the misconduct, full and free disclosure to a disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward the proceedings and remorse. Mr. Condos violated ER 1.15 and Rules 43 and 44, DALE R. GWILLIAM Bar No ; File No dated Jan. 22, 2003, Dale R. Gwilliam, 2141 E. Broadway, Suite 214, Tempe, AZ 85282, was censured for unauthorized practice and failing to cooperate with the State Bar. Mr. Gwilliam must pay the State Bar s costs and expenses of $2,386.38, with Mr. Gwilliam was summarily suspended for failure to provide his MCLE certificate for the 1999/2000 Education Year on Mar. 12, He was reinstated on June 14, In the mid-1990s Mr. Gwilliam started his representation of a couple in litigation involving the use of property. Mr. Gwilliam learned of his suspension in April 2001 and, even though he was suspended, he continued to represent the clients in their litigation, including appellate work. He did not withdraw from the case until November Mr. Gwilliam failed to inform his clients, the courts, his co-counsel or the opposing counsel of his suspension. Mr. Gwilliam failed to cooperate with the State Bar s investigation of this matter. disciplinary offenses and substantial experience in the practice of law. Six mitigating factors were found: absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, personal or emotional problems, timely good faith effort to rectify the consequences of the misconduct, cooperative attitude, imposition of other penalties or sanctions and remorse. Mr. Gwilliam violated Rule 42,, particularly, ERs 5.5(a) (unauthorized practice), 8.1 (disciplinary matters) and 8.4(a) (misconduct) and Rules 31(a)(3) (membership), 33(c) (pro hac vice) and 51(h) (disciplinary grounds), PHILLIP D. HINEMAN Bar No ; File Nos , , and dated Jan. 8, 2003, Phillip D. Hineman, 2929 North 44th St., Suite 120, Phoenix, AZ 85018, was censured for charging excessive fees and failing to adequately communicate the basis of the fee to the client. Mr. Hineman was also placed on one year s probation, including obtaining a practice monitor. Mr. Hineman must pay the State Bar s costs and expenses of $4,598.83, with The formal complaint in this matter involved four counts. In the majority of these cases, Mr. Hineman charged excessive fees and his fee agreements failed to adequately communicate or explain the basis for the fees. In one case, in addition to the excessive fees and failure to adequately explain his fees to the client, Mr. Hineman entered into a business transaction with his client to satisfy unpaid legal fees. Mr. Hineman accepted a quitclaim deed to the client s house to secure payment for delinquent legal fees. Mr. Hineman failed to satisfy the affirmative obligation to provide notice to the client to consult with independent counsel. Absent advice from independent counsel, Mr. Hineman then failed to obtain the client s written consent to proceed with the transaction. Three aggravating factors were found: prior disciplinary offenses, multiple offenses and substantial experience in the practice of law. Four mitigating factors were found: absence of selfish or dishonest motive, 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 and remorse. Mr. Hineman violated ERs 1.5(a) and (b) (fees) and 1.8(a) (conflict). CHARLES M. GILES Bar No ; File Nos , and dated Nov. 1, 2002, Charles M. Giles, 2720 E. Broadway, Tucson, AZ 85716, was suspended 43

2 by consent for 120 days, effective Jan. 15, 2003, for failing to abide by a client s instructions; failing to withdraw as attorney of record and failing to promptly and diligently deliver client funds to clients. Upon reinstatement, Mr. Giles will be placed on two years probation and participate in the Law Office Member Assistance Program and pay restitution totaling $20, Mr. Giles must pay the State Bar s costs and expenses of $1,500.34, with Mr. Giles misconduct concerns his actions as a commercial collection attorney for whom he had a longtime working relationship. When management changed, Mr. Giles failed to timely cease work on some of the collections against the instructions of his client, failed to withdraw as attorney of record, failed to promptly and diligently account for prior and current collection matters that resulted in the failure to promptly deliver to clients funds, and failure to provide a timely, full and complete accounting of his trust account pursuant to the Trust Account Guidelines. Five aggravating factors were present: prior discipline, pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, vulnerability of the victim and substantial experience in the practice of law. There were five mitigating factors: full and free disclosure to the disciplinary agencies and a cooperative attitude towards the proceedings, delay in disciplinary proceedings, imposition of other penalties or sanctions, remorse and remoteness of prior offense. Mr. Giles violated ERs 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.15 and 8.4(d) and Rules 43 and 44, JOHN G. GLIEGE Bar No ; File Nos and dated Feb. 20, 2003, John G. Gliege, P.O. Box 1388, Flagstaff, AZ 86002, was censured and ordered to serve a one-year period of probation, including participation in the Law Office Member Assistance Program. Mr. Gliege must $1,152.29, with Mr. Gliege failed to hold clients funds separate and apart from non-client funds, failed to record all transactions promptly and completely, failed to preserve complete client trust account records for a period of five years, failed to deposit a client s funds intact into his trust account, failed to use internal controls to safeguard funds and property held in trust and failed to reconcile his trust account on a monthly basis. Four aggravating factors were found: prior disciplinary offenses, pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses and substantial experience in the practice of law. Eight mitigating factors were found: absence of selfish or dishonest motive, personal or emotional problems, timely good faith effort to make restitution or rectify the consequences of his misconduct, full and free disclosure to a disciplinary board and cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, character or reputation, physical disability, remorse and remoteness of the prior offense. Mr. Gliege violated ER 1.15(a) and Rules 43(a) & (d) and 44(a) & (b)(3), MARSHA L. GRIFFITHS Bar No ; File No dated Oct. 31, 2002, Marsha L. Griffiths, 326 S. Hanseman, Carbondale, IL 62901, was suspended for six months and one day for failing to communicate court dates to her clients; failing to appear for hearings and practicing law while suspended. Ms. Griffiths was ordered to $1,264.42, with Ms. Griffiths represented a defendant in a civil matter. Ms. Griffiths joined in a co-defendant s motion for summary judgment and then failed to appear at the hearing. Ms. Griffiths also failed to appear at a status conference and settlement conference; failed to submit settlement memoranda; failed to file her joint pre-trial statement; failed to inform her client about the missed court dates; and failed to inform the court, opposing counsel and the State Bar of her new address. Ms. Griffiths was administratively suspended on April 28, 2000, and Sept. 15, 2000, and was not reinstated until Oct. 20, 2000, yet she appeared at the pretrial conference on Sept. 6, Ms. Griffiths has received three prior informal reprimands. discipline and pattern of misconduct. One mitigating factor was found: absence of dishonest or selfish motive. Ms. Griffiths violated ERs 1.1, 3.2, 3.4(c), 5.5 and 8.4(d) and Rules 31(c)(3) and 51(e) and (k), THEODORE E. HANSEN Bar No ; File Nos , , , , , , and dated July 9, 2002, Theodore E. Hansen, 2266 S. Dobson Rd, Suite 200, Mesa, AZ 85202, was suspended for 18 months for failing to diligently and competently represent his clients and for engaging in trust account violations and the unauthorized practice of law while suspended. Upon reinstatement, Mr. Hansen will be placed on two years probation and ordered to participate in both the Member Assistance Program and the Law Office Member Assistance Program. Mr. Hansen must pay restitution to twelve clients of $2, and must pay the State Bar s costs and expenses, with Mr. Hansen failed to prepare and provide annual minutes for a corporate client, failed to communicate with the client and failed to take steps necessary to protect the client s interests when he was terminated. Mr. Hansen also failed to adequately represent clients who came to him to have their articles of incorporation published. Mr. Hansen received publication costs in advance from his clients, but failed to pay the publisher who then refused to file the required Affidavit of Publication. This resulted in clients having their corporate charters revoked and required them to obtain new counsel to rectify the effects of Mr. Hansen s misconduct. Mr. Hansen failed to respond timely to State Bar inquiries in these matters. Mr. Hansen wrote insufficient funds checks from his client trust account and otherwise mishandled the trust account resulting in ten overdrafts over a six-month period. On several occasions during 2000, Mr. Hansen was summarily suspended for non-compliance with MCLE and remains suspended. During the times he was suspended, Mr. Hansen continued to prepare and file incorporation papers for clients and continued to use his IOLTA account. Seven aggravating factors were found: prior discipline, selfish motive, pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, substantial experience in the practice of law and indifference to making restitution. Two mitigating factors were found: delay in the disciplinary process and remorse. Mr. Hansen violated ERs 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, 1.16(d), 5.5, 8.1(b) and Rules 31(a)(3), 33(c), 43, 44 and 51(h) and (i), BARRY H. HART Bar No ; File Nos , , , , , , , and dated Nov. 1, 2002, Barry H. Hart, P.O. Box 1865, Cave Creek, AZ 85327, was suspended for two years and ordered to serve a two-year period of probation, including participation in fee arbitration and the Member Assistance Program. Mr. Hart must pay restitution to two clients totaling $7, and must pay the State Bar s costs and expenses of $3,371.43, with Mr. Hart failed to diligently represent his clients, failed to adequately communicate with his clients, failed to provide an accounting when requested by a client, failed to take the steps necessary upon termination of representation to protect his clients interests, mishan- 44 ARIZONA ATTORNEY JUNE 2003

3 dled trust account funds, commingled personal funds with client funds in his trust account, failed to keep accurate trust account records and failed to respond to bar counsel s inquiries during the State Bar s investigation. Six aggravating factors were found: dishonest or selfish motive, pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with the rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, submission of false statements during the disciplinary process and substantial experience in the practice of law. Three disciplinary record, personal or emotional problems and remorse. Mr. Hart violated ERs 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.15(a) & (b), 1.16(d), 8.1(a) & (b), 8.4(d), and Rules 43 (a) & (d), 44(a) and 51(h) & (i), RANDY WILLIAM JENKINS Bar No ; File Nos , , and By Supreme Court Order dated Feb. 24, 2003, Randy William Jenkins, P.O. Box 1146, Peoria, AZ 85380, was found in contempt and ordered to cease and desist the unauthorized practice of law. Mr. Jenkins must pay the State Bar s costs and expenses with Mr. Jenkins was disbarred by the Supreme Court s Order dated June 28, 1991, and has not been reinstated. The State Bar brought a contempt proceeding against Mr. Jenkins for the unauthorized practice of law. Mr. Jenkins engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and had disseminated false and misleading communications about himself as a lawyer, all in violation of the Court s disbarment order. Seven aggravating factors were found: prior discipline, dishonest or selfish motive, pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary process, failure to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct and indifference to making restitution. No mitigating factors were found. Mr. Jenkins violated ERs 5.5(a), 7.1, 7.5, 8.4 and Rule 51(e), GARY PETER KLAHR Bar No ; File Nos , , , , , , and dated Jan. 8, 2003, Gary Peter Klahr, 317 E. Berridge Lane, Phoenix, AZ 85012, was disbarred for failing to supervise both non-attorney staff and contract attorneys, aiding the unauthorized practice of law, failing to return files and unearned fees and charging excessive fees. Mr. Klahr must pay restitution to three clients totaling $2,150 and pay the State Bar s costs and expenses, with 45

4 CAUTION: Nearly 16,000 attorneys are eligible to practice law in Arizona. Many attorneys share the same names. All reports should be read carefully for names, addresses and Bar numbers. Mr. Klahr engaged in various acts of misconduct that included entering agreements to represent clients in various legal matters then assigning the matters to a contract attorney who was unsupervised by Mr. Klahr. Multiple matters under this arrangement resulted in the clients legal interests being adversely affected by his failure and/or the failure of the contract attorney to perform the required legal services. Mr. Klahr entered into non-refundable fee contracts with clients and in cases where Mr. Klahr did not fully earn the funds; yet he refused to later return the unearned portion of the funds to the client. Over a prolonged period of time, Mr. Klahr allowed unqualified and unsupervised persons to manage and actively participate in his law practice. Mr. Klahr abdicated his duties to oversee and supervise both his non-lawyer staff and his contract attorneys. The Judgment and Order sets forth, by count, the specific facts and violations of the eight files involved with the formal complaint in this matter. Eight aggravating factors were found: prior disciplinary offenses, dishonest or selfish motive, pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct, vulnerability of the victim and indifference to making restitution. Five mitigating factors were found: personal or emotional problems, character or reputation for engaging in pro bono and extensive community work, physical disability, mental disability, and imposition of other penalties or sanctions. Mr. Klahr violated ERs 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(a), 1.15, 1.16, 3.2, 5.1, 5.3, 8.4 and Rule 51(h) and (i), ANTHONY R. LOPEZ, JR. Bar No ; File No dated Feb. 21, 2003, Anthony R. Lopez, Jr., 516 S. 6th St., Suite 100, Las Vegas, NV 89101, was censured by consent. Mr. Lopez was placed on two years probation, including participation in the Law Office Member Assistance Program, should Mr. Lopez resume an Arizona practice. Mr. Lopez must pay the State Bar s costs and expenses of $946.48, with Mr. Lopez failed to maintain trust account records in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules and the Trust Account Guidelines, failed to make disbursements from the trust account by pre-numbered check, failed to reconcile his trust account on a monthly basis and failed to record all transactions promptly and completely. disciplinary offenses and pattern of misconduct. Six mitigating factors were found: absence of selfish or dishonest motive, personal or emotional problems, cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, reputation, delay in disciplinary proceedings and remorse. Mr. Lopez violated ER 1.15 and Rules 43 and 44(a), J. DOUGLAS McVAY Bar No ; File Nos , and dated Feb. 25, 2003, J. Douglas McVay, 207 W. Clarendon, Suite 3, Phoenix, AZ 85013, was censured by consent and placed on probation for two years. As a term of probation Mr. McVay is required to participate in the Law Office Member Assistance Program. In addition, Mr. McVay must pay the State Bar s costs and expenses of $691.50, with Mr. McVay represented three separate clients in different criminal matters. In his representation, Mr. McVay failed to act with reasonable diligence, failed to properly and adequately communicate with the clients, failed to render an accounting of his fees when requested and failed to provide documents to a client upon request. Three aggravating factors were found: prior disciplinary record, multiple offenses and substantial experience in the practice of law. Two mitigating factors were found: absence of dishonest or selfish motive and full cooperative attitude toward the proceedings. Mr. McVay violated ERs 1.3, 1.4, 1.15(b), 1.16(d) and 8.4(d). JOSEPH D. PALMER Bar No ; File No dated Feb. 13, 2003, Joseph D. Palmer, P.O. Box 755, Cardiff, CO 92007, pursuant to Rule 58(c) for reciprocal discipline, was suspended for 60 days with 30 days stayed, effective Aug. 1, 2002, to run concurrent with Mr. Palmer s Colorado discipline. Mr. Palmer was placed on one year s probation pursuant to the terms of, and concurrent with, the Colorado probation. Mr. Palmer must pay the State Bar s costs and expenses of $600, with Mr. Palmer was the president and sole shareholder of a corporation that built and sold homes. Mr. Palmer pled guilty to a class V felony in Colorado for failing to pay sales taxes, was sentenced to two years unsupervised probation and 200 hours of community service and was ordered to refund $133, to homebuyers who had not received full refunds or credits. No aggravating factors were found. Four disciplinary record, cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, imposition of other penalties or sanctions and remorse. Mr. Palmer violated Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct 251.5(b) and Rule 51(a), MERYL D. ROSE Bar No ; File No dated Feb. 19, 2003, Meryl D. Rose, 4757 E. Greenway Rd., Box 103, Phoenix, AZ 85032, was suspended by consent for three years, retroactive to July 15, Upon reinstatement, Ms. Rose will be placed on one year s probation including participation in the Member Assistance Program as well as working with a practice monitor. Ms. Rose must $3,210.33, with Ms. Rose s misconduct arose in the performance as trustee for her brother s trust funds. Between 1995 and 1998, Ms. Rose and her husband misappropriated funds totaling approximately $103,000. Ms. Rose pled guilty to the class 3 felony of theft and was sentenced to five years of probation, 500 hours of community service and was fined $2,500. Ms. Rose has successfully completed the community service, made full restitution and has paid the fine. Ms. Rose s probation officer has petitioned the court for early termination of her probation. One aggravating factor was found: dishonest or selfish motive. Eight mitigating factors were found: absence of prior disciplinary record, personal or emotional problems, full cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, character or reputation, mental disability, imposition of other penalties or sanctions and remorse. Ms. Rose violated ER 8.4 and Rule 51(a), SCOTT W. SCHLIEVERT Bar No ; File Nos , and dated Aug. 1, 2002, Scott W. Schlievert, 425 W. Paseo Redondo, Suite 2, Tucson, AZ 85701, was censured by consent for failing to adequately communicate with two clients, failing to promptly return a client s file, failing to promptly make an agreed upon refund of a disputed fee after termination of a representation and engaging in a conflict of Mr. Schlievert was placed on probation for one year and ordered to pay restitution of $229 to a client and submit to a Law Office Member Assistance Program audit of office procedures. 46 ARIZONA ATTORNEY JUNE 2003

5 Mr. Schlievert was also ordered to pay the State Bar s costs and expenses of $768.95, with In two matters, Mr. Schlievert failed to adequately consult with clients concerning the objectives of the representation and the means by which those were to be accomplished, failed to explain the matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the clients to make informed decisions regarding the representation and failed to promptly return one client s file. In another matter, Mr. Schlievert inadvertently represented one client in a collection matter against a second client, while he was representing the second client in a marriage dissolution. This conduct was also prejudicial to the administration of justice. Four aggravating factors were found: prior discipline, pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses and substantial experience in the practice of law. Four mitigating factors were found: absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, full cooperative attitude toward proceedings, remorse and remoteness of prior offenses. Mr. Schlievert violated ERs 1.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.15(b) and (c), 1.16(d), and 8.4(d) and Rules 44(b) and (c), JENNIFER P. SODARO File No dated Aug. 1, 2002, Jennifer P. Sodaro, 7373 E. Doubletree Ranch, Suite 200, Scottsdale, AZ 85258, was censured by consent for the unauthorized practice of law and use of a misleading letterhead. Ms. Sodaro must pay the State Bar s costs and expenses of $1,305.74, with Ms. Sodaro is an attorney licensed in the State of Illinois, but she is not licensed to practice law in or admitted pro hac vice in Arizona. Ms. Sodaro provided legal services to a client in Arizona and sent letters to potential dealers of the client s swimming pool chlorination system on letterhead that included an Arizona address. By doing so, Ms. Sodaro engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Arizona. Ms. Sodaro failed on several occasions to state on her letterhead that she was not licensed to practice law in Arizona. Three aggravating factors were found: pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses and substantial experience in the practice of law. Four mitigating factors were found: absence of a prior disciplinary record, absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, full and free disclosure to a disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings, and remorse. Ms. Sodaro violated ERs 5.5, 7.1(a), 7.5(b) and Rules 31(a)(3) and 33(c), 47