April Tex. B.J. 370 DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS
|
|
|
- Joella York
- 10 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 April Tex. B.J. 370 DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS RESIGNATION On Jan. 12, 2006, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation, in lieu of discipline, of Stephen Paul Glover, 53, of Houston. The court found that on April 18, 2005, Glover pleaded guilty to theft over $200,000, a first-degree felony, and the court entered an order deferring adjudication of guilt in Cause Number ,styled The State of Texas v. Stephen Paul Glover, in the 177th District Court of Harris County. Also on April 18, 2005, Glover pleaded guilty to unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, a state jail felony, and the court entered an order deferring adjudication of guilt in Cause Number , styled The State of Texas v. Stephen Paul Glover, in the 177th District Court of Harris County. As a result of such plea to intentional and serious crimes as defined in Rules 1.06(T) and (Z) of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, Glover would be subject to compulsory discipline under Part VIII of the Rules. On Jan. 12, 2006, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation, in lieu of discipline, of Robert Michael Thomas, 40, of Dallas. At the time of Thomas s resignation, there were two pending grievance matters against him. In the first matter, the complainant hired Thomas on April 15, 2003, to represent the complainant s wife in an immigration matter. Thereafter, Thomas failed to perform any meaningful legal services on the case. Thomas failed to return phone calls or answer written correspondence requesting the status of the case. Thomas s non-attorney employees worked on the complainant s case without Thomas s supervision. Finally, Thomas failed to promptly comply with the complainant s request for return of the case file. In a second matter, between 1998 and 2004, Thomas represented the complainant and her family in a variety of legal matters. The complainant s contact with Thomas was through Thomas s non-lawyer employee, whom the complainant believed to be a lawyer, and more specifically, Thomas s associate. During the course of Thomas s representation, Thomas s employee gave legal advice to the complainant and her family. Thomas failed to respond to notice of the complaint. Thomas violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), 5.03(a) and (b)(1), 5.05(b), and 8.04(a)(8). On Jan. 12, 2006, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation, in lieu of discipline, of Stephen Charles Bowes, 56, of Dallas. At the time of Bowes s motion for resignation, there was one grievance matter pending against him. In February 1998, the complainant hired Bowes to represent him in a personal injury matter. In November 2000, the matter settled and Bowes withheld $546 to pay a medical provider. Thereafter, Bowes failed to provide the funds to the medical provider. Bowes paid restitution to the complainant in the sum of $546. Bowes violated Rules 1.14(b) and 8.04(a)(2) and (a)(3).
2 On Jan. 19, 2006, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation, in lieu of discipline, of Donald J. Large, 30, of Houston. On Dec. 15, 2005, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation, in lieu of discipline, of Thomas E. Mayes,65, of Dallas. The court found that in one matter, in March 2000, the complainant employed Mayes to represent him in a personal injury case. On Feb. 14, 2002, Mayes filed an original petition in the case, but he thereafter failed to make a diligent effort to have the defendant served. In addition, Mayes failed to respond to the complainant s numerous requests for information regarding the case. Mayes failed to return the complainant s file upon request. In a second matter, on Nov. 21, 2001, the complainant hired Mayes to represent her in a wrongful termination matter. The complainant paid Mayes a $1,000 fee and provided him with various case-related documents. The complainant subsequently learned that Mayes was administratively suspended from practicing law for nonpayment of both his bar dues and attorney occupation tax. The complainant subsequently requested the return of her fees as well as her documents. Mayes failed to comply with the complainant s request until after the complainant filed a grievance against him. Mayes failed to timely respond to the complaint. Mayes violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(3), (a)(8), and (a)(11). DISBARMENTS On Dec. 4, 2005, Paul James Weaver, Jr., 46, of Plano, received a judgment of disbarment nunc pro tunc. The District 1-A Grievance Committee found that in one matter, Weaver was hired by four of the complainants to recover funds invested in a corporation. Weaver failed to reply to the complainants proper requests for information and failed to provide an accounting of the retainer fee, as requested. Weaver failed to provide information requested by the State Bar. Weaver promised to refund the retainer paid if the complainants agreed to withdraw all grievances filed against Weaver. Upon the complainants agreement, Weaver sent two checks drawn on his IOLTA account to two of the complainants. One check was returned NSF. Weaver failed to refund any portion of the retainer to the other complainants. In a second matter, Weaver was hired to provide representation in a civil lawsuit. Weaver filed the lawsuit but failed to take any further action in the matter and failed to communicate with his client. In a third matter, Weaver was hired to represent the plaintiff in a civil lawsuit. The lawsuit settled in mediation, requiring the defendant to make monthly payments to the complainant. The defendant wrote checks payable to the complainant and forwarded them to Weaver, who forged the complainant s signature on six checks and deposited them in his IOLTA account. Weaver failed to respond to the complainant s requests for information about the payments and failed to respond to a written demand for an accounting of the funds. Weaver violated Rules 1.01(b)(1),1.03(a), 1.14(b) and (c), 8.01(b), and 8.04(a)(3) and (a)(8). Weaver was ordered to pay $3, in attorney s fees and costs and $28, in restitution. On Dec. 9, 2005, R. Scott Hogarty, 52, of Houston, was disbarred.the 157th District Court of Harris County found that Hogarty repeatedly engaged in the practice of law when his right to practice law had been suspended for failure to timely pay required fees or assessments.
3 Hogarty violated Rule 8.04(a)(11). He was ordered to pay $3,040 in attorney s fees and $ in costs. On Dec. 1, 2005, Lucinda M. Juarez, 45, of Corpus Christi, was disbarred. An evidentiary panel for the District 11-A Grievance Committee found that in one case, Juarez was hired regarding a family dispute over the ownership of inherited real property and was paid $1,500. Juarez failed to return phone calls and keep the client informed of the status of his case, failed to respond to discovery, disregarded court orders, and failed to appear for court settings. Juarez also failed to safe keep the client s original documents and client file and misrepresented that she had taken legal action on the client s case when she had not. In a second case, Juarez failed to respond to her client s requests for information and neglected the case. When terminated, Juarez failed to withdraw from the case and failed to return unearned fees. In a third case, Juarez was hired to collect child support, but failed to pursue the matter, failed to keep her client informed, and misrepresented to the client that the hearing had been conducted and resolved in his favor. In all three matters, Juarez failed to respond to notice of the complaint. Juarez violated Rules 1.01(b)(1) and (b)(2), 1.03(a) and (b), 1.14(a), 1.15(d), 8.04(a)(3) and (a)(8). Juarez was ordered to pay restitution of $1,500 to the client in the first case, $500 to the client in the second case, and $300 to the client in the third case, and $1,787 in attorney s fees and expenses. On Dec. 9, 2005, Frank W. McIntyre, 55, of Dallas, received a judgment of disbarment from the 160 th District Court. The jury found that the respondent received funds in which a client or third person had an interest and failed to promptly notify the client or third party. The jury also found that McIntyre knowingly disobeyed a ruling of a tribunal when he failed to forward a check drawn from the registry of the court to the U.S. Treasury Department for payment of his client s tax bill. McIntyre violated Rules 1.14(b) and 3.04(d). He was ordered to pay $7,500 in attorney s fees and costs. On July 1, 2005, Harvey Stephens, 36, of Irving, received a default judgment of disbarment. The 44th District Court found that Stephens was employed in a non-attorney position as a claims representative for a utility company. He settled a claim, representing himself as the attorney for the company, and instructed the payor to issue a check in his name. He deposited the check into his bank account and did not pay any of the proceeds to the utility company. Stephens attempted this scheme with two other claims he was handling for the company, but was unsuccessful in completing the plan. Stephens violated Rules 8.04(a)(2) and (a)(3). He was ordered to pay $1,750 in attorney s fees and $301 in costs. SUSPENSIONS On Dec. 13, 2005, Randall E. Johnston, 60, of Rowlett, received a two-year, partially probated suspension effective Jan. 1, The suspension shall be probated from the completion date of the following conditions: 1) the filing of a written psychological evaluation stating that Johnston is competent to practice law; 2) payment of $1,000 in restitution and return of a client s file; and 3) payment of $2, in attorney s fees and $ in costs.
4 The District 1-A Grievance Committee found that in one matter, on June 7, 2002, the complainant employed Johnston in connection with a divorce. The complainant paid Johnston a $1,000 retainer and signed an employment contract. Thereafter, Johnston failed to file a petition for divorce or to provide any other legal services on the complainant s behalf. Despite the complainant s numerous attempts to contact Johnston, he failed to reply to the complainant s reasonable requests for information. Further, Johnston closed his law office and failed to provide any information to the complainant regarding his new location or how the complainant could contact him. In a second matter, on July 29, 2003, the complainant employed Johnston to defend a barking dog complaint in violation of a city ordinance. The complainant paid Johnston $150 and Johnston provided the legal services. Johnston notified the complainant on Oct. 22, 2003, that if the dogs remained quiet through Dec. 13, 2003, the matter would be resolved. On Dec. 15, 2003, the complainant attempted to contact Johnston, but found that his office had been closed. The complainant was unsuccessful in her attempts to contact Johnston to obtain the return of her file. On Jan. 14, 2004, the complainant sent a certified letter to Johnston requesting the return of her file, which was returned as unclaimed, although the regular mail letter was not returned. In both matters, Johnston failed to respond to notice of the complaint. Johnston violated Rules 1.01(b)(1) and (b)(2), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8). On Jan. 18, 2006, Teddy L. Potter, 63, of Belton, accepted a two-year, fully probated suspension effective Feb. 1, An evidentiary panel of the District 8-C Grievance Committee found that in a criminal law matter, Potter failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of the case or withdraw from representation when he became ill and unable to represent the client. In a family law matter, Potter failed to explain matters to the extent reasonably necessary for the client to make an informed decision about the case. In both matters, Potter failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure that his non-lawyer staff s conduct was compatible with the obligations of the lawyer. Potter violated Rules 1.03(a) and (b), 1.15(a)(2), and 5.03(a). He was ordered to submit to an attorney monitor and to pay $1,600 in attorney s fees. On Dec. 23, 2005, Randall A. Parker, 57, of San Antonio, received a two-year, fully probated suspension effective Dec. 1, An evidentiary panel of the District 10-C Grievance Committee found that the complainant retained Parker in January 1999 to pursue a Federal Torts Claim Act claim involving the death of his wife while she was a patient at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio. After the U.S. Army Claims Service denied the complainant s administrative claim in 1999 and the reconsideration request in January 2004, Parker failed to proceed and file suit in federal court within the prescribed time period to protect the complainant s interest. Parker failed to advise the complainant that he was not going to file a federal suit, failed to withdraw from the representation, and failed to give reasonable notice to the complainant that he was not going to file suit. Parker failed to return telephone calls from the complainant attempting to determine the status of the matter and failed to advise the complainant that he had moved his office. Parker violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a) and (b), and 1.15(d). He agreed to pay $4,000 in attorney s fees and costs. On Jan. 18, 2006, Thomas R. Cox
5 On Jan. 18, 2006, Thomas R. Cox III, 41, of Dallas, received a three-year, fully probated suspension effective Feb. 1, The District 6-A Grievance Committee found that Cox defended the complainant in a criminal prosecution. On April 11, 2003, the complainant entered an open plea bargain. The court found the complainant guilty and sentenced him to 10 years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The court instructed Cox to cause the complainant to be returned to Dallas within 150 days for consideration of shock probation. Cox failed to have a bench warrant issued for the complainant to return to Dallas within the statutory 180-day period. As a result of that failure, the court was prevented from considering shock probation for the complainant. Cox violated Rules 1.01(b)(1) and 3.04(d). He was ordered to pay $1,800 in restitution to the complainant and $1,625 in attorney s fees. On Dec. 22, 2005, Jeffrey N. Coffee., 32, of Buda, received a judgment of active suspension. The District 15-C Grievance Committee found that on Nov. 11, 2002, Coffee was retained regarding a civil matter. Coffee failed to prosecute the case after defense counsel, due to venue, transferred the case on May 15, Coffee failed to provide the client copies of requested court documents and failed to answer or return calls. Coffee failed to timely respond to notice of the complaint. Coffee violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a) and (b), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $1,500 in attorney s fees, $225 in court costs, and $450 in restitution. On Jan. 31, 2006, Milenia I. Soto, 50, of Houston, accepted a 16-month partially probated suspension effective Feb. 1, 2006, with the first three months actively served and the remainder probated. The District 4-D Grievance Committee found that Soto was hired for representation in an immigration matter; however, the case was issued an abandonment denial based on Soto s failure to respond to requests for information. Soto also failed to maintain communication with her client. Soto violated Rules 1.01(b)(1) and (b)(2) and 1.03(a) and (b). She agreed to pay $4, in restitution and $900 in attorney s fees. On Jan. 27, 2006, James A. Nolen, 41, of Houston, accepted a two-year, fully probated suspension effective Feb. 1, The District 4-E Grievance Committee found that in one matter, Nolen was retained to represent his client on criminal charges. Nolen failed to attend scheduled hearings. Nolen s client attempted to contact him on numerous occasions but was unsuccessful. In a second matter, Nolen was retained to represent his client on criminal charges but failed to reasonably communicate with his client. Nolen also failed to timely file a written response to the allegations or assert any grounds for his failure to do so. Nolen violated Rules 1.01(b)(1) and (b)(2), 1.02(a)(1), 1.03(b), 8.01(b), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $2, in attorney s fees and costs and $500 in restitution. On Jan. 3, 2006, J. Esequiel Ramos, Jr., 46, of Corpus Christi, received a one-year, fully probated suspension effective Jan. 1, The evidentiary panel of the District 11- A Grievance Committee found Ramos failed to keep his client informed of the trial date and failed to appear at trial, resulting in a default judgment being granted against the client. During the representation, Ramos failed to return telephone calls or respond to letters from the client seeking information on the status of his case. He failed to inform the client that he was leaving the law firm.
6 Ramos violated Rules 1.01(b)(1) and 1.03(a). He was ordered to pay $1,750 in attorney s fees and $750 in restitution. On Oct. 24, 2005, A. Gene Gaines, 70, of Dallas received a three-year, partially probated suspension effective Jan. 1, 2006, with the first three months actively served and the remainder probated. The 298th District Court of Dallas County found that in one matter, the complainant hired Gaines in January 2002 to represent him in an eviction action. Gaines failed to subsequently provide the complainant with a signed copy of their employment contract, keep the complainant informed about the status of his case, and respond to the complainant s reasonable requests for information. Gaines failed to appear at a scheduled hearing on complainant s behalf and failed to adequately represent the complainant in the corresponding appeal. Gaines failed to respond to notice of the complaint. In a second matter, the complainant hired Gaines in July 1999 to represent her in a medical malpractice suit on a contingency fee basis. Although the complainant subsequently made numerous efforts to contact Gaines about her matter, Gaines failed to respond to the complainant s efforts to contact him and failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed about the status of her case. In addition, he failed to explain case matters to the complainant to enable her to make informed decisions regarding the representation. On Dec. 19, 2003, Gaines rejected a settlement offer issued by the opposition without having first informed the complainant about the offer and without obtaining her consent to decline the offer. Gaines violated Rules 1.01(b)(1)(2), 1.02(a)(2), 1.03(a)(b), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $7,650 in attorney s fees and costs. On Feb. 16, 2006, Todd J. Broussard, 37, of Houston, accepted a five-year, active suspension effective March 1, The District 4-A Grievance Committee found that Broussard was hired for representation in a personal injury matter. During the course of the representation, the client passed away and her son was designated as the representative for the surviving children. Broussard thereafter settled the case without the client s knowledge or consent, and further forged or caused the client s name to be forged on the release. Broussard failed to inform the client of the settlement and after deducting his attorney s fees, failed to properly disburse the remaining settlement proceeds. Broussard also failed to respond to the grievances. Broussard violated Rules 1.03(a) and (b), 1.14(b), 5.03(b)(1), 8.01(b), and 8.04 (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3). He agreed to pay $11, in restitution and $2,000 in attorney s fees. On Feb. 16, 2006, Edward P. Black, 60, of Houston, accepted a two-year, fully probated suspension effective Feb. 16, An evidentiary panel of the District 4-A Grievance Committee found that on March 29, 2004, the complainant retained Black to prepare a will for the complainant s wife. The complainant paid a flat fee of $500 to the respondent for the will. Although the will was executed, neither the executed will, nor a copy of the will, were delivered to the complainant or his wife despite their repeated requests. In addition, Black did not effectively respond to requests for communication by the complainant. Black failed to timely respond to notice of the complaint. Black violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a) and (b), and 8.04(a)(8). Black agreed to pay $500 in restitution to the complainant and $1,200 in attorney s fees.
7 On Jan. 25, 2006, Jeffrey D. Sasser, 44, of Houston, received a two-year, partially probated suspension effective Feb. 1, 2006, with the first month actively served and the remainder probated. The 295th District Court of Harris County found that Sasser was hired to complete an adoption, but failed to finalize the adoption order, failed to respond to his client s repeated requests for information on the case, and failed to return the file to the client upon termination of the representation. Sasser failed to timely respond to the grievance. Sasser violated Rules 1.01(b)(2), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $14,350 in attorney s fees and $2, in costs. On Jan. 12, 2006, Elaine Watson, 50, of Wimberley, received a two-year, partially probated suspension effective Feb. 1, 2006, with the first six months actively served and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 15-C Grievance Committee considered two complaints against Watson. In the first case, Watson neglected a probate case by failing to file the application for six months, failed to prepare for a court hearing, canceled a hearing on the morning that it was to be held, and failed to ever secure another setting. Watson failed to return her client s telephone calls and failed to keep her client informed about the status of the case. Watson failed to withdraw from the representation when her physical condition impaired her ability to represent her client. In the second case, the evidentiary panel found that Watson was appointed appellate counsel in a criminal matter in November Despite repeated requests for information, Watson did not contact her client until March Watson withdrew from the representation in October During the course of the representation, Watson performed no substantive work on the case and failed to communicate with her client. Watson failed to withdraw from the representation when her physical condition impaired her ability to represent her client. Watson violated Rules 1.01(b)(1) and (b)(2), 1.03(a) and (b), and 1.15(a)(2). Watson was ordered to pay $340 in restitution and $1,050 in attorney s fees. Also on Jan. 12, 2006, Watson received a public reprimand. The District 15-C Grievance Committee found that in July 2003, Watson was retained to pursue a health-care liability claim. During the representation, Watson and her staff failed to ensure that her intention to disengage from the representation was communicated to the client and failed to return telephone calls inquiring about the status of his claim. Watson violated Rules 1.03(a) and (b) and She was ordered to pay $750 in attorney s fees. PUBLIC REPRIMANDS On Dec. 30, 2005, Meridel S. Solbrig, 63, of Fredericksburg, accepted a public reprimand. The District 15-B Grievance Committee found that Solbrig undertook the representation of a client in a medical malpractice case. Solbrig permitted non-lawyer third parties to draft, sign, and file pleadings and to request the issuance and service of citation on the defendants without proper supervision. Solbrig failed to take reasonable remedial action to avoid or mitigate the consequences of the misconduct by the non-lawyers. Solbrig violated Rules 5.03(a) and (b) and 5.05(b). Solbrig was ordered to pay $700 in attorney s fees. On Jan. 16, 2006, Douglas L. Haynes, 42, of Houston accepted a public reprimand. The District 4-F Grievance Committee found that in one matter, Haynes was hired to
8 prosecute certain claims on behalf of an independent physicians association as related to its contractual relations with a management company. During the course of the representation, Haynes failed to communicate with his client and failed to file a lawsuit on its behalf. Instead, the management company sued the clients individually and Haynes accepted service without permission. In a second matter, Haynes was hired for representation in an immigration matter and continued the representation while on administrative suspension from the practice of law. Haynes violated Rules 1.01(b)(1) and (b)(2), 1.02(a)(1), 1.03(a) and (b), 3.02, and 8.04(a)(3) and (a)(11). He agreed to pay $500 in attorney s fees. On Jan. 23, 2006, James B. Behan, 75, of Grand Prairie, received an agreed judgment of public reprimand. The District 6-A Grievance Committee found that on Aug. 27, 2003, Behan entered into a disciplinary judgment with the State Bar of Texas. Behan s license to practice law had been administratively suspended due to non-payment of the Texas Attorney Occupation Tax and noncompliance with the Minimum Continuing Legal Education requirement. The disciplinary judgment required Behan to correct the deficiencies that caused his law license to be suspended, bring his law license current by Dec. 1, 2003, and to pay restitution to the complainant in the amount of $2,100. Behan made restitution to the complainant, but failed to correct the deficiencies that caused his law license to be administratively suspended or bring his law license current. Behan violated Rule 8.04(a)(7). He was ordered to pay $1, in attorney s fees. On Jan. 30, 2006, James W. Myart, Jr., 51, of San Antonio, accepted a public reprimand. The District 10-B Grievance Committee found that on Sept. 15, 2004, Myart was retained in an employment law case and failed to render candid advice to the client and failed to advise the client of possible adverse consequences of certain actions. Myart violated Rule He was ordered to pay $500 in attorney s fees and costs. On Feb. 3, 2006, Troy J. Wilson, 44, of Houston, accepted a public reprimand. The District 4-C Grievance Committee found that Wilson was retained to provide legal services in connection with an appeal. After filing the notice of appeal, Wilson failed to ensure the timely filing of the clerk s record with the court of appeals by failing to pay the required fees. As a result of Wilson s failure to pay, his client s appeal was dismissed. Wilson also failed to apprise his client that the appellate matter was dismissed. Additionally, Wilson failed to file a timely written response to the grievance committee. Wilson violated rules 1.01(a)(1) and (b)(1), 1.03(a) and (b), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $500 in attorney s fees and costs. On Feb. 13, 2006, Brenda Vickers, 48, of Weatherford, accepted a public reprimand. The District 14-B Grievance Committee found that Vickers failed to respond to the complaint and failed to assert any grounds for her failure to respond. Vickers violated Rule 8.04(a)(8). She was ordered to pay $506 in restitution to the complainant and $1,000 in attorney s fees. On Feb. 17, 2006, Anita L.P. Miller, 62, of Houston, accepted a public reprimand. The District 4-A Grievance Committee found that Miller made court filings while administratively suspended from the practice of law in Texas. Miller violated rule 8.04(a)(11). She was ordered to pay $450 in attorney s fees.
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
May 2005 68 Tex. B. J. 442
May 2005 68 Tex. B. J. 442 DISBARMENTS On Oct. 4, 2004, Colin Kelly Kaufman, 58, of Corpus Christi was disbarred. Kaufman failed to hold funds belonging in whole or in part to clients or third parties
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
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
February, 2006 69 Tex. B.J. 178 DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS
February, 2006 69 Tex. B.J. 178 DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS Disbarment On Nov. 9, 2005, Jason P. Crowson, 40, of Houston, was disbarred.the District 4-F Grievance Committee found that in three separate complaints,
HOUSTON LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE, INC. RULES OF MEMBERSHIP
HOUSTON LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE, INC. RULES OF MEMBERSHIP The Houston Lawyer Referral Service, Inc. (HLRS) is a non-profit corporation sponsored by the Houston Bar Association, Houston Young Lawyers Association,
On April 15, 2013, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation,
General questions regarding attorney discipline should be directed to the Chief Disciplinary Counsel s Office, toll-free (877) 953-5535 or (512) 453-5535. The Board of Disciplinary Appeals may be reached
HOUSTON LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE, INC. APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP
HOUSTON LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE, INC. APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP The Houston Lawyer Referral Service, Inc. (HLRS) is a non-profit corporation sponsored by the Houston Bar Association, Houston Young Lawyers
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
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2012 WI 123 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Thomas E. Bielinski, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Thomas
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. Misc. Docket AG. No. 13. September Term, 2005 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND WILLIAM M.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG No. 13 September Term, 2005 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. WILLIAM M. LOGAN Bell, C.J. Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia Greene JJ.
[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
UNDERSTANDING TEXAS LAWYER DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE AND HOW TO AVOID IT
UNDERSTANDING TEXAS LAWYER DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE AND HOW TO AVOID IT ROBERT C. HINTON, JR., Dallas Robert Hinton & Associates State Bar of Texas 36 th ANNUAL ADVANCED CRIMINAL LAW COURSE July 26-29, 2010
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,
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
General District Courts
General District Courts To Understand Your Visit to Court You Should Know: It is the courts wish that you know your rights and duties. We want every person who comes here to receive fair treatment in accordance
Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Judicial Department 61 Broadway New York, New York 10006 (212) 401-0800 (212) 287-1045 FAX
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
The Circuit Court. Judges and Clerks. Jurisdiction
The Circuit Court The circuit court is the trial court of general jurisdiction in Virginia, and the court has authority to try a full range of both civil and criminal cases. Civil cases involve disputes
On Feb. 3, 2014, the Board of Disciplinary
General questions regarding attorney discipline should be directed to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, toll free (877) 953-5535 or (512) 453-5535. The Board of Disciplinary Appeals may be reached
Complaints Against Lawyers
complain.qxp 4/16/2008 10:16 AM Page 7 Complaints Against Lawyers When you hire a lawyer to handle a particular matter, you are a consumer of legal services, and as in any consumer relationship, you and
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
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Cox (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 218] Attorneys at law Misconduct Permanent disbarment Engaging in a series
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. COX. [Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Cox (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 218] Attorneys at law Misconduct Permanent disbarment Engaging in a series of actions that demonstrate contempt
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Saladin Eric Shakir, Misc. Docket AG No. 8, September Term, 2009
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Saladin Eric Shakir, Misc. Docket AG No. 8, September Term, 2009 ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE - SANCTIONS - DISBARMENT: Disbarment is the appropriate sanction for an attorney who
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
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN OFFICE OF LAWYER REGULATION. Colleen J. Locke 13-OLR- 12 Attorney at Law
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN OFFICE OF LAWYER REGULATION Public Reprimand with Consent Colleen J. Locke 13-OLR- 12 Attorney at Law Colleen J. Locke is a Wisconsin-licensed attorney, whose address of record
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
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
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.
How To Process A Small Claims Case In Anarizonia
What is a small claims division? Every justice court in Arizona has a small claims division to provide an inexpensive and speedy method for resolving most civil disputes that do not exceed $2,500. All
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2013 WI 14 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Donald A. Hahnfeld, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Donald
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,
STEVEN L. LEE DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS LIONE & LEE, P.C. 3921 STECK AVENUE SUITE A-119 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78759 (512) 346-8966 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCES
General questions regarding attorney discipline should be directed to the chief disciplinary counsel s office, toll-free (877) 953-5535 or (512) 453-5535. The Board of Disciplinary Appeals may be reached
ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS MISC. DOCKET NO. 00-9154 IN THE MATTER OF WALTER JOHN KOWALSKI
ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS MISC. DOCKET NO. 00-9154 IN THE MATTER OF WALTER JOHN KOWALSKI On this day, the Court considered the Motion for Acceptance of Resignation as Attorney and Counselor at
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
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
RULES FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINARY ENFORCEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
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
History: Add. 1971, Act 19, Imd. Eff. May 5, 1971; Am. 1976, Act 89, Imd. Eff. Apr. 17, 1976.
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS ACT Act 198 of 1965 AN ACT providing for the establishment, maintenance and administration of a motor vehicle accident claims fund for the payment of damages for injury to
[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
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
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
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
ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS Misc Docket No. 96-9196 Appointment of a District Judge to Preside in a State Bar Disciplinary Action The Supreme Court of Texas hereby appoints the Honorable Mark Davidson,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN THE MATTER OF BRUCE MICHAEL FRIEDMAN ORDER. On this day, the Court considered the Motion for Acceptance of
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS MI SC. DOCKET NO. 9 6-9244 IN THE MATTER OF BRUCE MICHAEL FRIEDMAN ORDER On this day, the Court considered the Motion for Acceptance of Resignation as Attorney and Counselor
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CIVIL MEDIATION PROGRAM GUIDELINES
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CIVIL MEDIATION PROGRAM GUIDELINES 1. Description. The Superior Court of California, County of Orange (Court), offers a voluntary civil mediation program for
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2015 WI 104 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Richard W. Voss, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Richard
LEGAL MALPRACTICE AND THE CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY By Peter L. Ostermiller
LEGAL MALPRACTICE AND THE CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY By Peter L. Ostermiller Occasionally, a defendant, while incarcerated and apparently having nothing better to do, will file a Motion under RCr. 11.42,
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
Texas Lawyer Discipline - A Summary
Houston Intellectual Property Law Association Presentation Recent Changes in the Grievance Procedure and How They Will Affect Your Law Practice SPEAKER: Robert S. Bob Bennett [email protected]
In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. 05-14-01390-CR. LUIS ANTONIO RIQUIAC QUEUNAY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed June 23, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-01390-CR LUIS ANTONIO RIQUIAC QUEUNAY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal
2011: The Year in Ethics and Bar Discipline. By Constance V. Vecchione, Bar Counsel January 2012
2011: The Year in Ethics and Bar Discipline By Constance V. Vecchione, Bar Counsel January 2012 In this article, the Office of Bar Counsel takes a second look at key developments in ethics and bar discipline
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
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
2012 WI 48 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Aaron J. Rollins, Attorney at Law:
2012 WI 48 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: 2011AP778-D In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Aaron J. Rollins, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant,
Your Rights as a Complainant in the Grievance Process State of Connecticut Judicial Branch www.jud.ct.gov
Attorney Grievance Procedures in Connecticut Your Rights as a Complainant in the Grievance Process State of Connecticut Judicial Branch www.jud.ct.gov Attorney Grievance Procedures in Connecticut To the
CHAPTER 6: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MICHIGAN COURT RULES OF 1985
CHAPTER 6: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MICHIGAN COURT RULES OF 1985 Subchapter 6.000 General Provisions Rule 6.001 Scope; Applicability of Civil Rules; Superseded Rules and Statutes (A) Felony Cases. The rules
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
VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- 2015 SESSION
VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- 2015 SESSION CHAPTER 585 An Act to amend and reenact 38.2-2206 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Article 7 of Chapter 3 of Title 8.01 a
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,
Glossary of Terms Acquittal Affidavit Allegation Appeal Arraignment Arrest Warrant Assistant District Attorney General Attachment Bail Bailiff Bench
Glossary of Terms The Glossary of Terms defines some of the most common legal terms in easy-tounderstand language. Terms are listed in alphabetical order. A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W
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
Atlanta Bar Association LAWYER REFERRAL AND INFORMATION SERVICE OPERATING RULES
Atlanta Bar Association LAWYER REFERRAL AND INFORMATION SERVICE OPERATING RULES The Board of Trustees for the Lawyer Referral and Information Service shall be responsible for the general oversight of the
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ~ the Government of~~t'fffv>ed ) )
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO InRe Complaint Against JOHN BARRY FRENDEN (0076200 390 I Lakeside Avenue East, Suite I 04 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 v. Respondent, CLEVELAND
PUBLISHED AS A PUBLIC SERVICE BY THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL
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
(l) IN THE MATTER OF $ ROBERT EUGENE EASLEY $ CAUSE NO. 4677s srate BAR CARD NO. 24036514 $ DEFAULT JUDGMENT OF DISBARMENT
BEFORE THE BOARD OF DISCIPLINARY APPEALS APPOINTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN THE MATTER OF $ ROBERT EUGENE EASLEY $ CAUSE NO. 4677s srate BAR CARD NO. 24036514 $ DEFAULT JUDGMENT OF DISBARMENT On
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
Reversed and Remanded and Opinion filed August 16, 2001. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-00-00177-CV HENRY P. MASSEY AND ANN A. MASSEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF COURTNEY
Chapter 153. Violations and Fines 2013 EDITION. Related Laws Page 571 (2013 Edition)
Chapter 153 2013 EDITION Violations and Fines VIOLATIONS (Generally) 153.005 Definitions 153.008 Violations described 153.012 Violation categories 153.015 Unclassified and specific fine violations 153.018
MPRE Sample Test Questions
MPRE Sample Test Questions The following sample questions are examples of test questions similar to those on the MPRE. While these sample questions illustrate the kinds of questions that will appear on
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,
If you have been sued as a defendant in a civil case...keep reading.
If you have been sued as a defendant in a civil case...keep reading. Court procedures can be complex. This brochure was developed to help Ohioans who are considering representing themselves in court. It
A Reminder: Avoiding and Surviving Attorney Ethics Complaints in Texas*
A Reminder: Avoiding and Surviving Attorney Ethics Complaints in Texas* A. THE BASICS FOR AVOIDING A GRIEVANCE Grievance claims in Texas have risen at a rate directly correlated to attorney growth. In
Notice of Class Action Lawsuit and Proposed Settlement. You May be Entitled to Receive a Settlement Payment.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Notice of Class Action Lawsuit and Proposed Settlement. You May be Entitled to Receive a Settlement Payment. A federal court authorized this
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
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERhECEIVED ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE OF n THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
In re: Complaint against Joseph Robert Compoli, Esq. Joseph Compoli Law Office 612 East 185th Street Cleveland, OH 44119 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERhECEIVED ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE OF n THE SUPREME
A Victim s Guide to the Capital Case Process
A Victim s Guide to the Capital Case Process Office of Victims Services California Attorney General s Office A Victim s Guide to the Capital Case Process Office of Victims Services California Attorney
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia Policy Statement 1105.1 Effective date: 12/14/2000 Page 2
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia Page 2 III. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY The General Counsel is delegated authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2672 to consider, ascertain,
On May 25, the State Commission
G eneral questions regarding attorney discipline should be directed to the Chief Disciplinary Counsel s Office, toll-free (877) 953-5535 or (512) 453-5535. The Board of Disciplinary Appeals may be reached
On Sept. 29, the Board of Disciplinary
G eneral questions regarding attorney discipline should be directed to the Chief Disciplinary Counsel s Office, tollfree (877) 953-5535 or (512) 453-5535. The Board of Disciplinary Appeals may be reached
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]
People v. Terry Ross. 14PDJ078, consolidated with 14PDJ093. May 6, 2015.
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
Peter Tom, Justice Presiding, Angela M. Mazzarelli Eugene Nardelli Luis A. Gonzalez Bernard J. Malone, Jr., Justices.
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Peter Tom, Justice Presiding, Angela M. Mazzarelli Eugene Nardelli Luis A. Gonzalez Bernard J. Malone, Jr., Justices. ---------------------------------------x
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
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.
COST AND FEE ALLOCATION IN CIVIL PROCEDURE
International Academy of Comparative Law 18th World Congress Washington D.C. July 21-31, 2010 Topic II.C.1 COST AND FEE ALLOCATION IN CIVIL PROCEDURE National Reporter - Slovenia: Nina Betetto Supreme
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
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
to add a number of affirmative defenses, including an allegation that Henry s claim was barred
REVERSE and REMAND; and Opinion Filed May 11, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-00616-CV DOROTHY HENRY, Appellant V. BASSAM ZAHRA, Appellee On Appeal from the
How to Complain About Lawyers and Judges in New York City
How to Complain About Lawyers and Judges in New York City COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE JUNE 2012 NEW YORK CITY BAR ASSOCIATION 42 WEST 44 TH STREET, NEW YORK, NY 10036 INTRODUCTION The New York
STEVEN L. LEE LIONE & LEE, P.C. 3921 STECK AVENUE SUITE A-119 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78759 (512) 346-8966
G eneral questions regarding attorney discipline should be directed to the Chief Disciplinary Counsel s Office, toll-free (877)953-5535 or (512)453-5535. The Board of Disciplinary Appeals may be reached
CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES
! Parties:! THIS AGREEMENT is made on the day of, 2012, in Plano, Collin, Texas, between ("Client"), and Reeves Law Firm, P.C. ("Attorney"):! In consideration of the mutual promises herein contained, the
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
VIRGINIA: BEFORE THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD MEMORANDUM ORDER
VIRGINIA: BEFORE THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN THE MATTER OF: VSB Docket No. 08-052-073229 STEPHEN ALAN BAMBERGER MEMORANDUM ORDER This matter came on August 23, 2011, to be heard on the
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
Judge Steve Seider Justice of the Peace Precinct 3, Place 2 Dallas County, Texas
NEW JUSTICE COURT RULES & JUSTICE COURT APPEALS Judge Steve Seider Justice of the Peace Precinct 3, Place 2 Dallas County, Texas [email protected] Office: (214) 904 3046 Cell: (972) 839 1487 Learning
INFORMATION FOR FILING AND DEFENDING A CIVIL CASE IN JUSTICE COURT
PINAL COUNTY Apache Junction Justice Court Eloy Justice Court Superior/Kearny Justice Court Maricopa/Stanfield Justice Court JUSTICE COURTS Casa Grande Justice Court Florence/Coolidge Justice Court Mammoth/San
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. O'Brien, 96 Ohio St.3d 151, 2002-Ohio-3621.]
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. O'Brien, 96 Ohio St.3d 151, 2002-Ohio-3621.] CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. O BRIEN. [Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. O Brien, 96 Ohio St.3d 151, 2002-Ohio-3621.] Attorneys
