1 People v. Costa, No.02PDJ Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved the parties Conditional Admission of Misconduct and disbarred Respondent, Maria R. Costa, attorney registration number 14968, from the practice of law in the State of Colorado in this default proceeding. Respondent received a formal reprimand, an audit of her law practice and a period of probation in the State of New Mexico for violation of nine separate provisions of the New Mexico Rules of Professional Conduct, arising from her handling of one matter in the State of New Mexico. Respondent filed a personal injury action in New Mexico naming five defendants. Five months later, respondent filed returns of service that two defendants had been served. The two defendants submitted written discovery requests to respondent. Three months later, despite the efforts of defendants counsel, respondent had not provided the discovery. When defendants counsel filed motions to compel, respondent did not respond on behalf of her clients, nor did she attend the hearing on the motions. At the hearing, both motions to compel were granted, and the court ordered respondent to produce the discovery and pay attorney fees. Respondent failed to respond to the court s orders. Some five months later, defendants filed motions to dismiss, respondent did not respond or appear at the hearing, and the court granted both motions to dismiss. Thereafter, respondent moved to set aside the order of dismissal and set forth material misrepresentations in her motion to the court. The Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel requested the sanction of disbarment in this reciprocal discipline matter for respondent s conduct in the State of New Mexico for respondent s conduct which constituted violations of The Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct: Colo. RPC 1.3, Colo. RPC 1.4(b), Colo. RPC 3.2, Colo. RPC 3.4(c), and Colo. RPC 8.4(c). Respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the proceeding. SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE BEFORE THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE th Street, Suite 510-South Denver, Colorado Complainant: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO Case Number: 02PDJ012 Respondent: MARIA R. COSTA
2 REPORT, DECISION AND IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS Opinion by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge Roger L. Keithley and Hearing Board members Mark D. Sullivan, a member of the bar, and Frances L. Winston, a representative of the public. SANCTION IMPOSED: ATTORNEY DISBARRED A sanctions hearing pursuant to C.R.C.P was held on September 27, 2002, before a Hearing Board composed of Roger L. Keithley, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge ("PDJ"), Mark D. Sullivan, a member of the bar, and Frances L. Winston, a representative of the public. James S. Sudler, Assistant Attorney Regulation Counsel represented the People of the State of Colorado (the "People"). Maria R. Costa, the respondent, ( Costa ) did not appear either in person or by counsel. The Complaint in this action was filed February 14, Costa did not file an Answer to the Complaint. On May 29, 2002, the People filed a Motion for Default. Costa did not respond. On July 9, 2002, the PDJ issued an Order granting default, stating that all factual allegations set forth in the Complaint were deemed admitted pursuant to C.R.C.P (b). The default Order also found that all violations of The Rules of Professional Conduct ("Colo. RPC") alleged in the Complaint except for Colo. RPC 8.4(h) were deemed established, e.g., People v. Richards, 748 P.2d 341 (Colo. 1987). The People did not move to amend the Complaint and therefore the charge of Colo. RPC 8.4(h) was deemed dismissed pursuant to the PDJ s order dated July 9, The Hearing Board considered the People's argument, the facts established by the entry of default, considered exhibits 1 and 2 offered and admitted into evidence, and made the following findings of fact which were established by clear and convincing evidence. I. FINDINGS OF FACT Costa has taken and subscribed to the oath of admission, was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court on November 1, 1985 and is registered upon the official records of this court, registration number Costa is subject to the jurisdiction of this court pursuant to C.R.C.P (b). All factual allegations set forth in the Complaint were deemed admitted by the entry of default. The facts set forth therein are
3 therefore established by clear and convincing evidence. See Complaint attached hereto as exhibit 1. The Order entering default also granted default as to all alleged violations of The Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in the Complaint except for Colo. RPC 8.4(h). The facts established by the entry of default reveal the following misconduct. In January 1997, Costa filed a personal injury action in the state court for the State of New Mexico naming five defendants. In May 1997, Costa filed returns of service indicating two of the five defendants had been served. In June 1997 attorneys for those two defendants entered appearances and in addition to other pleadings, submitted formal written discovery requests and served those requests upon Costa. On August 5, 1997, one of the defendant s lawyers sent Costa a letter saying that the interrogatories and the request for production were overdue, that he had not received responses to his discovery requests, and asked Costa to promptly provide discovery. The very next day the other defendant s lawyer sent Costa a similar letter requesting that Costa respond to the interrogatories and requests for production. When no responses were forthcoming from Costa, one of the defendant s lawyers called and spoke to her on August 22, Costa assured counsel that discovery responses would be hand-delivered in two days, on August 22, Thereafter, she failed to provide the promised discovery responses. Approximately two months after the discovery responses were to have been filed, both defendants lawyers separately filed motions to compel Costa s clients to comply with the outstanding discovery requests. Costa did not file responses to these motions on behalf of her clients nor did she attend the hearing held on November 3, At that hearing, both defendants motions to compel were granted. Costa was ordered to produce discovery to one of the defendants by November 24, 1997, and to pay attorney fees related to the motion. On November 21, 1997, the court issued its Order to Compel with regard to the other defendant s discovery requests and Costa was ordered to comply within ten days of the service of that Order. Costa failed to respond to either of the Court s orders and in December 1997 both defendants lawyers filed motions to dismiss based upon Costa s failure to obey the Court s orders. Costa did not respond to either of the motions to dismiss and she failed to attend the February 2, 1998, hearing on the motions. As the result of Costa s actions and inactions, on February 5, 1998, the Court dismissed the case Costa had filed on behalf of her clients. On March 9, 1998, Costa filed a Motion to Set Aside Order for Dismissal and for Reinstatement of the Cause of Action. The findings of
4 the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of New Mexico ( the New Mexico Board ) provide that the bases for Costa s motion were, inter alia: 1. She did not receive notice of said hearing, referring to the hearing of February 2, 1998; 2. All discovery material is ready to be delivered to counsel for the defense... ; and, 3. Plaintiffs and there (sic) counsel are ready and willing to proceed in this matter and request this matter be reinstated. On April 15, 1998, a hearing was held on Costa s Motion to Set Aside Order of Dismissal. At that hearing, Costa informed the Court, [A]round December 1, is the last time I had communication with [the plaintiffs]. 1 When questioned by the court, Costa admitted her misstatement: The Court: You say all discovery materials are ready to be delivered to counsel for the defense in your motion, but what you re telling me today is your clients have not provided you with verified answers to the interrogatories or requests or anything with respect to the requests for production. Ms. Costa: They have not provided me with anything for requests for production your Honor. The Court: When you say the discovery material is ready to be delivered to counsel for the defense, that s not true? Ms. Costa: It s not true, no, Judge. As a result of these actions, Costa was prosecuted before the New Mexico Board. On August 17, 2001, after Costa successfully completed an unspecified period of supervised probation and after she agreed to the audit of her law practice, the New Mexico Board imposed a sanction of formal reprimand against Costa for her misconduct in lieu of a period of suspension. In their written decision, which is attached to and incorporated in the Complaint filed in this case, the New Mexico Board found that Costa had made a blatant misrepresentation to the Court 1 Apparently, Costa took it upon herself to file a motion to reinstate the case despite having no contact with her alleged clients for more than three months.
5 when [she] stated in [her] motion that the discovery material was ready for delivery. The New Mexico Board also found that Costa had absolutely no explanation for missed hearings or failures to respond to opposing counsel other than her clients were not cooperative and she did not receive notice of hearings. Costa provided no evidence to support her allegations, nor did she provide any explanation as to why she failed to attend one hearing after admitting she had received sufficient notice. The New Mexico Board found that Costa had violated nine separate provisions of the New Mexico Rules of Professional Conduct, had a prior informal admonition for professional misconduct, committed multiple disciplinary offenses and had substantial experience in the practice of law. Costa has not participated in the within proceedings in Colorado. Proper notice of this disciplinary proceeding has been duly served upon the respondent according to the applicable rules. C.R.C.P (b) and (b). II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Under Claim 1 of the Complaint in this action, the entry of default established the following violations of The Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct ( Colo. RPC ): Colo. RPC 1.3 (neglect of a legal matter); Colo. RPC 1.4(a)(failure to communicate adequately); Colo. RPC 1.4(b)(failure to explain a matter to the client so that the client can make informed decisions regarding the representation); Colo. RPC 3.2 (failure to expedite litigation); Colo. RPC 3.3(a)(1)(making a false representation to a tribunal); Colo. RPC 3.4(c) knowingly disobeying an obligation to a tribunal); Colo. RPC 8.4(c)(engaging in dishonesty), and Colo. RPC 8.4(d)(engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). Grounds for discipline have been established pursuant to C.R.C.P (d)(failure to respond without good cause to the Office of the Attorney Regulation Counsel) and (failure to respond to the allegations in a request for investigation). Claim II alleged in the Complaint seeks imposition of reciprocal discipline under C.R.C.P As required by C.R.C.P , the Complaint alleged and therefore provided sufficient notice to Costa at paragraphs 8 and 9 that the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel sought greater discipline in Colorado than that imposed in New Mexico. The validity of a disciplinary order issued by a foreign jurisdiction must be viewed as conclusive unless the respondent lawyer files an answer and a full copy of the record of the disciplinary proceedings
6 which resulted in the imposition of that disciplinary order within twenty days after service of the complaint or such greater time as may be allowed. C.R.C.P (d). Costa neither filed an answer to the Complaint nor sought additional time to do so. Accordingly, the findings of fact set forth in the New Mexico Board s decision are conclusively established before the Hearing Board in this Colorado disciplinary action. III. SANCTION/IMPOSITION OF DISCIPLINE In the case of In re DeRose, No. 01SA297, (Colo. September 16, 2002), 2002 Colo. LEXIS 820, the Colorado Supreme Court recently stated: Id. at *15. Attorneys must adhere to high moral and ethical standards. Truthfulness, honesty, and candor are core values of the legal profession. In re Pautler, 47 P.3d 1175, (Colo. 2002). Lawyers serve our system of justice as officers of the court, and if lawyers are dishonest, then there is a perception that the system must also be dishonest. Id. at Attorney misconduct perpetuates the public s misperception of the legal profession and breaches the public and professional trust. Id. at A lawyer who knowingly misstates material facts to a tribunal fails to meet those high moral and ethical standards. Notwithstanding the New Mexico State Supreme Court s formal reprimand of Costa, the People requested that the Hearing Board impose the sanction of disbarment for the same conduct in this reciprocal discipline matter. C.R.C.P (d) provides in relevant part: Upon receiving notice that an attorney subject to these Rules has been publicly disciplined in another jurisdiction, the Regulation Counsel shall obtain the disciplinary order and prepare and file a complaint against the attorney as provided in C.R.C.P If the Regulation Counsel intends either to claim that substantially different discipline is warranted or to present additional evidence, notice of that intent shall be given in the complaint. At the conclusion of proceedings brought under this Rule, the Hearing Board shall issue a decision imposing the same discipline as was imposed by the foreign jurisdiction, unless it is determined by the Hearing Board that: (1) The procedure followed in the foreign jurisdiction did not comport with requirements of due process of law;
7 (2) The proof upon which the foreign jurisdiction based its determination of misconduct is so infirm that the Hearing Board cannot, consistent with its duty, accept as final the determination of the foreign jurisdiction; (3) The imposition by the Hearing Board of the same discipline as was imposed in the foreign jurisdiction would result in grave injustice; or (4) The misconduct proved warrants that a substantially different form of discipline be imposed by the Hearing Board. The facts established that Costa knowingly made a misrepresentation of material fact to the court in New Mexico. In Colorado, knowing misrepresentation of a material fact to a court warrants disbarment. In re Cardwell, 50 P.3d 897, 901 (Colo. 2002)(attorney suspended for three years with eighteen months stayed for, among other rule violations, making a material misrepresentation of fact to a tribunal); In re Elinoff, 22 P.3d 60, (Colo. 2001)(attorney suspended for three years with one year stayed and subject to conditions of probation for engaging in conduct constituting the offense of bribery, a class three felony); People v. Lopez, 980 P.2d 983, 984 (Colo. 1999)(disbarring attorney subject to conditional admission of misconduct for making misrepresentations of material fact on liquor license application, misrepresenting material information to liquor licensing authority, and to prospective investors); People v. Kolbjornsen, 35 P.3d 181, 185 (Colo. P.D.J. November 9, 1999)(attorney disbarred for submitting material false testimony in the course of his bankruptcy proceeding); People v. Rudman, 948 P.2d 1022, 1026 (Colo. 1997)(in light of mitigating circumstances, suspension for three years, rather than disbarment was appropriate for lawyer who engaged in intentional pattern of lies). The court in Kolbjornsen set forth the following rational for the harsh sanction of disbarment where an attorney has made a material misrepresentation of fact to a tribunal: Id. at 185. An attorney's misrepresentation of material facts to a court with the aim of benefiting himself or others to the detriment of his adverse party cannot be tolerated under an adversary system which depends upon the honesty of its officers to render fair and just decisions. Judicial officers, members of the profession and the public at large must be able to rely upon the truthfulness of an attorney's statements to the court. Confidence in the truth-seeking process engendered in our system of justice cannot exist absent such reliance. Costa s knowing misrepresentation to the court that discovery was ready for production had the potential of persuading the court that the
8 case could now proceed in a timely fashion and that any basis for justifying the earlier Order of Dismissal was now extinguished. The factual misrepresentation was material to the issues under consideration by the court. Knowing misrepresentations of material facts to a court by an attorney invariably bears a potentially significant adverse effect on the legal proceeding, places the client at significant risk, demeans the profession and diminishes the public trust in the administration of justice. Costa s misconduct falls squarely within the rational which supports the presumptive discipline of disbarment for the knowing misstatement of a material fact to a tribunal. Costa s additional misconduct serves to reinforce the presumptive sanction of disbarment: neglecting her clients case in violation of Colo. RPC 1.3, failing to communicate with them in violation of Colo. RPC 1.4(a), failing to expedite litigation in violation of Colo. RPC 3.2, knowing failure to obey orders of the New Mexico court concerning discovery in violation of Colo. RPC 3.4(c), dishonest conduct in violation of Colo. RPC 8.4(c), and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Colo. RPC 8.4(d). The ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1991 & Supp. 1992) ("ABA Standards") is the guiding authority for selecting the appropriate sanction to impose for lawyer misconduct and is consistent with the decisions in Colorado. ABA Standard 6.11 provides: Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer, with the intent to deceive the court, makes a false statement, submits a false document, or improperly withholds material information, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a party, or causes a significant or potentially significant adverse effect on the legal proceeding. ABA Standard 4.41(b) and (c) provide that disbarment is generally appropriate when: (b) a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client; or (c) a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect with respect to client matters and causes serious or potentially serious injury to the client. ABA Standard 4.42(a) and (b) provide that suspension is generally appropriate when:
9 (a) a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes injury or potential injury to a client; or (b) a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect and causes injury or potential injury to a client. The presumptive sanction recommended by ABA Standards 4.41 and 4.42 are distinguished by the degree of injury or potential injury occasioned by the lawyer's misconduct. Serious injury as opposed to less than serious injury suggests disbarment rather than suspension. The Hearing Board considers the injury or potential injury to which Costa exposed her clients to be serious injury warranting disbarment under the ABA Standards. Determination of the appropriate sanction requires the Hearing Board to consider aggravating and mitigating factors. Since Costa did not participate in these proceedings, no mitigating factors were established. The facts deemed admitted in the Complaint establish several aggravating factors pursuant to ABA Standard 9.22: Costa engaged in a pattern of misconduct, see id. at 9.22(c); she engaged in multiple offenses, see id. at 9.22(d); and she failed to cooperate in the disciplinary proceeding, see id. at 9.22(e). The Hearing Board finds that: (1) the imposition of the same discipline as was imposed in New Mexico is contrary to the law in Colorado and would result in grave injustice; and (2) the misconduct established under Colorado law warrants substantially different discipline pursuant to C.R.C.P (d), and accordingly the Hearing Board finds that substantially different discipline must be imposed.
10 IV. ORDER It is therefore ORDERED: 1. MARIA R. COSTA, attorney registration number is disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Colorado effective thirty-one days from the date of this Order and her name shall be stricken from the roll of attorneys licensed to practice law in this state; 2. Costa is Ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings; the People shall submit a Statement of Costs within ten (10) days of the date of this Order. Respondent shall have five (5) days thereafter to submit a response thereto.
11 DATED THIS 16th DAY OF OCTOBER, (SIGNED) ROGER L. KEITHLEY PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE (SIGNED) MARK D. SULLIVAN HEARING BOARD MEMBER (SIGNED) FRANCES L. WINSTON HEARING BOARD MEMBER
12 EXHIBIT 1
13 SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE BEFORE THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE th Street, Suite 510-South Denver, Colorado Complainant: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO Case Number: Respondent: MARIA R. COSTA JAMES S. SUDLER th Street, Suite 200-South Denver, Colorado Telephone: (303) , ext. 325 Attorney Reg. No COMPLAINT THIS COMPLAINT is filed pursuant to the authority of C.R.C.P through and , and it is alleged as follows: 1. The respondent has taken and subscribed the oath of admission, was admitted to the bar of this court on November 1, 1985, and is registered upon the official records of this court, registration number She is subject to the jurisdiction of this court in these disciplinary proceedings. The respondent's registered business address is th Street NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico CLAIM I 2. The respondent received a formal reprimand from the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico on August 17, A copy of the formal reprimand is attached to this complaint as Exhibit A and is incorporated herein. The facts concerning the respondent s conduct as stated on pages 1 through 4 of Exhibit A, which led to that discipline are specifically incorporated herein as if set out verbatim. 3. The respondent was placed on a supervised probation before she received the formal reprimand. 4. Upon information and belief, the respondent successfully completed the supervised probation after which she was issued the formal reprimand. 5. The respondent s conduct violated the following rules: Colo. RPC 1.1 (lack of competence), 1.3 (lack of diligence), 1.4 (lack of adequate communication), 3.2 (failure to expedite litigation), 3.3(a)(1) (making false representation to a tribunal), 3.4(c)
14 (knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal), 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 8.4(h) engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on her fitness to practice law). WHEREFORE, the complainant prays at the conclusion hereof. CLAIM II 6. Paragraphs 1 through 5 are incorporated herein. 7. The respondent s conduct in knowingly making a blatant misrepresentation of material fact to the court in New Mexico, as described in Exhibit A, was misconduct that, according to precedent in Colorado, results in the lawyer being disbarred. See People v. Kolbjornsen, 35 P.3d 181 (Colo. 1999), 1999 Colo. Discipl. LEXIS 6. ( Colorado law provides that, in the absence of substantial mitigating factors, disbarment is the presumed sanction when an attorney knowingly makes a false statement of material fact to a court. ) 8. The presumed sanction in this matter is that the respondent should be disbarred and her name stricken from the list of registered attorneys in Colorado. 9. This sanction is significantly greater than that imposed in New Mexico, pursuant to the authority conveyed by C.R.C.P A hearing board should decide whether the sanction should be disbarment or some lesser sanction. WHEREFORE, it is prayed that the respondent be found guilty of violations of various rules of conduct which establish grounds for discipline as provided in C.R.C.P and , and the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct and that she be appropriately disciplined and assessed the costs of these proceedings. Date this day of February, JAMES S. SUDLER Assistant Regulation Counsel JOHN S. GLEASON, #15011 Regulation Counsel th Street, Suite 200-South Denver, Colorado Telephone: (303) Attorneys for Complainant
People v. Garrow, No. 00PDJ068, 9.25.01. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge and Hearing Board suspended the Respondent, William F. Garrow, from the practice of law for a period of one
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE BEFORE THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE 600 17 TH STREET, SUITE 510-S DENVER, CO 80202 Complainant: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE
People v. Verce. 11PDJ076, consolidated with 12PDJ028. June 11, 2012. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge suspended Joseph James Verce (Attorney Registration Number 12084), for a period
People v. J. Bryan Larson. 13PDJ031. October 18, 2013. Following a sanctions hearing, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred J. Bryan Larson (Attorney Registration Number 31822). The disbarment took
People v. Fiore. 12PDJ076. March 15, 2013. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred David Anthony Fiore (Attorney Registration Number 39729), effective April 19, 2013. Fiore failed
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES COMMISSION ON BAR DISCIPLINE GUIDELINES FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS A. PURPOSE AND NATURE OF SANCTIONS 1.1 Purpose of Lawyer Discipline Proceedings The purpose of lawyer
People v.lindemann, No.03PDJ066. June 2, 2004. Attorney Regulation. Following a sanctions hearing at which Respondent did not appear, the Hearing Board disbarred Respondent, attorney registration number
People v. Albright, No.03PDJ069. 10/29/03. Attorney Regulation. Following a sanctions hearing at which Respondent did not appear, the Hearing Board disbarred Respondent, attorney registration number 14467,
People v. Webb. 13PDJ007. June 13, 2013. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Glenn L. Webb (Attorney Registration Number 20023), effective July 18, 2013. Webb, an intellectual
People v. Terry Ross. 14PDJ078, consolidated with 14PDJ093. May 6, 2015. Following a sanctions hearing, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Terry Ross (Attorney Registration Number 16588). The disbarment
People v. 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
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS Definitions Adopted by the Michigan Supreme Court in Grievance Administrator v Lopatin, 462 Mich 235, 238 n 1 (2000) AInjury@ is harm to
People v. Cardwell, No. 00PDJ074. 7/11/01. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge and Hearing Board suspended Respondent, Jerry E. Cardwell from the practice of law for a period of three
05/23/2014 "See News Release 028 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 14-B-0619 IN RE: DAVID P. BUEHLER ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM Pursuant to Supreme
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT PANEL A IN RE: DONALD W. COLSON ARKANSAS BAR ID No. 2005166 CPC Docket No. 2013-008 FINDINGS AND ORDER Donald W. Colson is an attorney licensed
Summary of Opinion. People v. Berkley, No. 99PDJ073, 12/7/1999. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge and Hearing Board reinstated Petitioner, Martin J. Berkley to the practice of law effective
People v. Cozier, No. 02PDJ106, 08.08.03. Attorney Regulation. The Hearing Board disbarred Respondent, Clifford G. Cozier, attorney registration number 20550 from the practice of law following a sanctions
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.
People v. Graham, 07PDJ064. July 31, 2008. Attorney Regulation. Following a hearing pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.18, a Hearing Board suspended Raymond Anson Graham (Attorney Registration No. 14106) from the
People v. Ra shadd, 04PDJ023. March 10, 2005. Attorney Regulation. Upon conclusion of a sanctions hearing, the Hearing Board disbarred Respondent Giorgio D. Ra shadd (Registration No. 30417) from the practice
Tuesday 18th November, 2008. On March 19, 2008 came the Virginia Board of Bar Examiners, by W. Scott Street, III, its Secretary-Treasurer, and presented to the Court a petition, approved by the Virginia
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
People v. Essay, No. 99PDJ125 (consolidated with 00PDJ035). Attorney Registration. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge and Hearing Board disbarred Respondent, Edward J. Essay, Jr., from the practice of law.
People v. David Auer. 14PDJ006. June 18, 2014. Following a sanctions hearing, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred David Auer (Oklahoma Attorney Registration Number 14672). The disbarment took effect
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: : : SUSAN M. ROBBINS, : : Bar Docket No. 196-06 Respondent. : : A Member of the Bar of the : District of Columbia
FILED MARCH 16, 2015 STATE BAR COURT OF CALIFORNIA HEARING DEPARTMENT LOS ANGELES In the Matter of ANDREW MacLAREN STEWART, Member No. 204170, A Member of the State Bar. Case Nos.: 13-O-15838-DFM DECISION
People v. 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
SEATTLE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AMERICAN INN OF COURT ETHICS MAY 21, 2015 INTRODUCTION JONATHAN MCFARLAND 2 IN RE REINES - CASE OVERVIEW CHRISTIE MATTHAEI 3 APPLICABLE RULES THERESA WANG 4 APPLICABLE FEDERAL
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
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
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of JOHN H. MCDONALD, Bar Docket No. 227-00 Respondent. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONDIBILITY
RULES FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINARY ENFORCEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA December 1, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA RULES
People v. Peter D. Nitschke. 14PDJ067. May 13, 2015. Following a sanctions hearing, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Peter D. Nitschke (Attorney Registration Number 34313). The disbarment took
Boyle v. People, Case No. 02PDJ067, June 16, 2004, nunc pro tunc May12, 2004. Attorney Regulation. Daniel F. Boyle, attorney registration no. 07152, was reinstated to the practice of law following a full
People v. Price, No. 02PDJ003, 11.22.02. Attorney Regulation. George F. Price, attorney registration number 10652, was reinstated to the practice of law effective December 22, 2002. SUPREME COURT, STATE
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,
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
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO PREHEARING INSTRUCTIONS For the purpose of facilitating disciplinary hearings and related proceedings that are conducted pursuant to Rule V of
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORAD0 CASE NO.: 99PDJ108 ORIGINAL PROCEEDING BEFORE THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE OPINION AND ORDER REINSTATING TIMOTHY PAUL McCAFFREY S LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW TIMOTHY PAUL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF 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
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2015 WI 2 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Emory H. Booker, III, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Emory
Supreme Court of Louisiana FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #031 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Per Curiams handed down on the 27th day of May, 2016, are as follows: PER CURIAM: 2016-B
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
RULES OF THE U. S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON The following rules, adopted by the judges of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, shall bind
Elinoff v. People, No. 03PDJ048. 11/14/03. Attorney Regulation. The Hearing Board reinstated Kallman S. Elinoff, attorney registration number 18677 from the practice of law in the State of Colorado. SUPREME
People v. Parsley, 04PDJ058. March 10, 2005. Attorney Regulation. Upon conclusion of a sanctions hearing, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Respondent Jeffrey A. Parsley (Registration No. 8069)
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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 105,258 In the Matter of BART A. CHAVEZ, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed April 8, 2011. Published
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
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
Rule 82.1 Who May Appear as Counsel; Who May Appear Pro Se Only members of the bar of this Court may appear as counsel in civil cases. Only individuals who are parties in civil cases may represent themselves.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: ) ) MICHAEL A. CEBALLOS ) Bar Docket No. 329-00 ) Respondent. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL
[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
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
MERCER COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION XTREME CLE COURSE TITLE: LOCATION: Ethics with Charles Centinaro 2.0 NJ CLE Credits The Conference Center at MCCC DATE: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 TIME: SPEAKERS: 8:00 am
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.
Departmental Disciplinary Committee Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Judicial Department 61 Broadway (212) 401-0800 (212) 287-1045 FAX HOW TO FILE A COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION When you hire a lawyer
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
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
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
Complying with the FCPA- An Exploration of Ethical Issues Raised by Recent Cases Are the Professional Conduct Rules Any Different? By Roseann B. Termini, Esq. firstname.lastname@example.org www.fortipublications.com
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: : : MARY D. BRENNAN, : : Respondent. : D.C. App. No. 04-BG-148 : Bar Docket No. 044-04 A Member of the Bar of
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
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT AlS-0567 OFFICE OF APPELLATE COURTS AUG 19 2015 FILED In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Todd Allen Duckson, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 219125.
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
[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.]
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2014 WI 2 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Steven T. Berman, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Steven T.
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, WYOMING STATE BAR, 2015 WY 114 April Term, A.D. 2015 August 19, 2015 Petitioner, v. D-15-0005 FRANK J. JONES, WSB No. 4-1050,
THE MISSISSIPPI BAR v. SCOTT DAVID BEAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-BD-01054-SCT DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/20/2013 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: MELISSA SELMAN MARTIN ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: SCOTT
This information has been prepared for persons who wish to make or have made a complaint to The Lawyer Disciplinary Board about a lawyer. Please read it carefully. It explains the disciplinary procedures
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2015 WI 38 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: 2014AP2906-D In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jon Evenson, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v.
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
OVERVIEW OF BAR DISCIPLINE DIVERSION PROGRAMS (Prepared May 23, 2007) 1 Introduction The following information provides an overview of the states' attorney discipline diversion programs that address alcohol
CHAPTER 20. FLORIDA REGISTERED PARALEGAL PROGRAM 20-1. PREAMBLE RULE 20-1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this chapter is to set forth a definition that must be met in order to use the title paralegal, to establish
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2013 WI 20 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Joan M. Boyd, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Joan M. Boyd,
Supreme Court In the Matter of Daniel J. Saxton. No. 2014-64-M.P. O R D E R This disciplinary matter is before us pursuant to Article III, Rule 6(d) of the Supreme Court Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.
Rule 214. Attorneys convicted of crimes. (a) An attorney convicted of a [serious] crime shall report the fact of such conviction within 20 days to the [Secretary of the Board] Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY Disciplinary Review Board Docket No. DRB 12-119 District Docket No. XA-2011-0017E IN THE MATTER OF STUART D. FELSEN AN ATTORNEY AT LAW Decision Decided: October i, 2012 To the
03/07/008 "See News Release 017 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 07-B-1996 IN RE: DOUGLAS M. SCHMIDT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM Pursuant to Supreme
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A09-1656 Original Jurisdiction Per Curiam In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Richard J. Coleman, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 136141. Filed: January
FILED THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a referee) CLERK, SUPREME COURT Case No. 82,114 [TFB Case No.93-30,140(09 3) @it V. RAYMOND E. CRWER, Respondent, APPELLATE ARGUMENT
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
Peters and Kusick, No.03PDJ010, 12.23.04. Attorney Regulation. Following a trial, the Hearing Board issued public censures as to Respondents William E. Peters and Edward C. Kusick, Jr. Kusick was suspended
Illinois Compiled Statutes HIGHER EDUCATION (110 ILCS 1005/) Private College Act. (110 ILCS 1005/0.01) (from Ch. 144, par. 120) Sec. 0.01. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Private College Act.
ARTICLE 36: KANE COUNTY DRUG REHABILITATION COURT RULES AND PROCEDURES (a) Mission: The Illinois General Assembly has recognized that there is a critical need for a criminal justice program that will reduce
10/14/2011 "See News Release 066 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 11-B-1631 IN RE: MAZEN YOUNES ABDALLAH ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM * This disciplinary