Utah Bar Journal

In summary:
Mr. Sorge failed to properly file a Complaint and Summons for his client. Mr. Sorge did not timely respond to a Motion to Dismiss. Mr. Sorge lacked an understanding of jurisdictional requirements. Mr. Sorge did not communicate to his client the basis or rate of his fee in writing. Mr. Sorge did not earn the fees collected and did not return the unearned fees.

SUSPENSION
On June 29, 2005, the Honorable Pamela G. Heffernan, Second Judicial District Court, entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of Discipline: Suspension suspending M. Karlynn Hinman for a period of three years, effective June 29, 2005, for violation of Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) (Communication), 1.5(b) (Fees), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 3.2 (Expediting Litigation), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4 (a) and (c) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
In one matter, Ms. Hinman failed to provide competent and diligent representation to a client by failing to meet requirements and deadlines on appeal, failing to attend hearings, and failing to file motions. Ms. Hinman also failed to provide adequate communication with the client, failed to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the case, and did not promptly comply with the clientÕs reasonable requests for information. Ms. Hinman did not communicate in writing the basis or rate of her fee to the client despite requests from the client to do so. Ms. Hinman failed to reply to the Office of Professional Conduct's ("OPC") Notice of Informal Complaint ("NOIC").

In a second matter, Ms. Hinman prepared a Verified Complaint on behalf of a client to be filed in United States District Court. Ms. Hinman did not file it when the client believed that it had been filed and Ms. Hinman did not tell the client otherwise. Ms. Hinman then filed a state court action on behalf of the client. The complaint was not served on the opposing party until almost six months later. After the answer was filed, Ms. Hinman took no steps to further prosecute the matter. Ms. Hinman failed to keep the client reasonably informed about the case status and did not promptly comply with the client's reasonable requests for information. Four years after being retained, Ms. Hinman resigned from the case. The client requested her documents and file. Ms. Hinman never provided these to the client. Ms. Hinman failed to reply to the OPC's NOIC.

DISBARMENT
On May 18, 2005, the Honorable Scott M. Hadley, Second Judicial District Court, entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of Disbarment against Rodney Gilmore disbarring Mr. Gilmore from the practice of law for violation of Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) (Communication), 1.15(a) (Safekeeping Property), 1.15(c) (Safekeeping Property), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 5.5(a) (Unauthorized Practice of Law), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a), (c), and (d) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
Mr. Gilmore had numerous overdrafts on his client trust account. The Office of Professional Conduct ("OPC") requested, in writing, that Mr. Gilmore explain why the overdrafts occurred. Mr. Gilmore never replied. The OPC issued Notices of Informal Complaints ("NOIC") and Mr. Gilmore failed to respond in writing to the NOICs.

In a separate matter, Mr. Gilmore was hired by a client who lived out of state. Mr. Gilmore never discussed the fee arrangement with the client, never sent a bill, and never requested an advance payment of the retainer fee. Mr. Gilmore failed to appear for hearings, delaying the case. Mr. Gilmore did not file a withdrawal in the case. The client was unable to reach Mr. Gilmore and often was unable to leave messages. Mr. Gilmore did not respond to the client's calls and did not keep the client informed of the case status. Mr. Gilmore's failure to represent the client caused a judgment to be entered against the client, which caused injury when the court found the client in contempt and issued a warrant for the client's arrest, and may have caused a disadvantage to the client in negotiations in the case. Mr. Gilmore also failed to respond to the OPC's written requests for information and to the NOIC.

ADMONITION
On August 1, 2005, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court entered an Order of Discipline: Admonition against an attorney for violation of Rules 1.15(a) (Safekeeping Property), 1.15(c) (Safekeeping Property), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
An attorney was given a check, written by the client, to be held in the attorney's client trust account. The attorney withdrew the funds from the client trust account and held those funds in the attorneyÕs office for an extended period of time thus subjecting the funds to theft, loss, or misuse. The attorney had a dispute with the client concerning the ownership of the funds and the attorney failed to hold the disputed funds in a client trust account until the dispute was resolved.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On August 3, 2005, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court entered an Order of Discipline: Public Reprimand against Brenda L. Flanders for violation of Rules 1.5(a) (Fees), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
Ms. Flanders charged an excess fee for a chapter 7 bankruptcy case given the number of assets and the non-complex income involved, along with her years of experience in bankruptcy law. Ms. Flanders failed to respond to requests for a response to the informal complaint.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On August 1, 2005, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court entered an Order of Discipline: Public Reprimand against J. Bryan Jackson for violation of Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) (Communication), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
Mr. Jackson was retained to represent a client in an employment action. Mr. Jackson did not follow up with the client regarding the specifics of the case. Mr. Jackson did not file a complaint in the action until two and a half years after the client hired him. Mr. Jackson failed to communicate with the client for almost 18 months until after the client filed the complaint with the Office of Professional Conduct.

INTERIM SUSPENSION
On July 21, 2005, the Honorable William W. Barrett, Third Judicial District Court, entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of Interim Suspension, suspending Gregory P. Cohen from the practice of law pending final disposition of the Complaint filed against him.

In summary:
The Third District Court entered a Judgment in a criminal case against Mr. Cohen for the crime of enticing a minor over the Internet, a third degree felony, pursuant to Utah Code Annotated section 76-4-401. The interim suspension is based upon this conviction pursuant to Rule 19 of the Rules of Lawyer Discipline and Disability.

SUSPENSION
On July 6, 2005, the Honorable Derek Pullan, Fourth Judicial District Court, entered an Order of Discipline: Suspension, suspending Bruce A. Embry for a period of one year, effective July 6, 2005, for violation of Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence) 1.4(a) and (b) (Communication), 1.6(a) (Confidentiality of Information), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
In one matter, Mr. Embry was retained to represent a husband and wife in a bankruptcy matter. Mr. Embry filed two actions on behalf of the clients, both of which were dismissed. The second bankruptcy was dismissed because Mr. Embry failed to attend the creditors' meeting and file the necessary paperwork. Mr. Embry transferred the clients' file without their knowledge or permission to another attorney.

In a second matter, Mr. Embry represented a husband and wife in a bankruptcy action. Mr. Embry closed his practice without informing the clients and transferred the clients' file to another attorney without obtaining their consent.

SUSPENSION
On July 26, 2005, the Honorable Fred D. Howard, Fourth Judicial District Court, entered an Order of Discipline: Suspension, suspending Richard S. Clark II for a period of six months and one day, effective February 25, 2004, for violations of Rules 8.4(a) and (b) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Upon reinstatement, Mr. Clark shall be on unsupervised probation for a period of three years.

In summary:
Mr. Clark was convicted of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs ("DUI") on January 24, 2001. Mr. Clark had been convicted on two previous occasions of DUI, and also appeared in court when he was impaired.

In the event that Mr. Clark is reinstated from the suspension, he will be placed on unsupervised probation for a period of three years.

SUSPENSION
On July 19, 2005, the Honorable John R. Morris, Second Judicial District Court, entered an Order of Discipline: Suspension of Six Months and One Day, suspending E. Kent Winward, effective July 19, 2005, for violations of Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.2 (Scope of Representation), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(b) (Communication), 3.3(a)(1) (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
In one matter, Mr. Winward was hired to defend his clients against a credit union. The credit union obtained an order and judgment against the clients. A lien was placed against the clients' property. Mr. Winward filed a bankruptcy on behalf of the clients in order to remove the lien. The lien was not removed.

In a second matter, Mr. Winward was retained to file a bankruptcy. The client filed a complaint with the Office of Professional Conduct. Mr. Winward failed to respond to the Notice of Informal Complaint.

In a third matter, Mr. Winward was retained to file a bankruptcy action. Due to an administrative error, the clientsÕ case was converted and notice of a meeting of creditors was sent to the clients. The case was dismissed. Mr. Winward filed another bankruptcy action on behalf of the clients. The bankruptcy court directed that the clients needed to prepare, file and provide their tax returns to Mr. Winward; the clients delivered the necessary documents to Mr. Winward. Mr. Winward did not file the tax returns and the case was dismissed.

In a fourth matter, Mr. Winward was retained to file a bankruptcy action. The case was dismissed. Mr. Winward refiled the bankruptcy action and the case was discharged. After the second bankruptcy was filed an attempt was made to repossess the clients' vehicle but it was stopped because of the automatic stay. Mr. Winward informed the clients that he would pursue the damaged vehicle case. Mr. Winward did not keep the clients informed of the case status, would not return the clients' phone calls and the clients had to go to Mr. Winward's office to contact him.

ADMONITION
On September 7, 2005, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court entered an Order of Discipline: Admonition against an attorney for violations of Rules 1.4(a) (Communication), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 7.1(b) (Communications Concerning a LawyerÕs Services), 7.5(a) (Firm Names and Letterhead), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
An attorney was hired to repair the clientÕs credit. There was inadequate communication between the client and the attorney. The attorney failed to provide the client with the client's file or any evidence that the attorney did any work. The attorney's website was misleading as to the results that could be achieved. The website also led potential clients to believe that the attorney's firm was a firm, when it was not.

DISBARMENT
On August 26, 2005, the Honorable J. Dennis Frederick, Third Judicial District Court, entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of Discipline: Disbarment, disbarring James H. Tily, effective August 26, 2005, for violations of Rules 8.4(a), (b), and (c) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
On March 9, 2004, Mr. Tily pled guilty to robbery, a second-degree felony, pursuant to Utah Code ¤ 76-6-301. On or about July 3, 2003 at a grocery store in Salt Lake County, Mr. Tily took property in the presence of another by force or fear. The property did not belong to Mr. Tily.

RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE
On August 22, 2005, the Honorable John Paul Kennedy, Third Judicial District Court, entered an Order of Reciprocal Discipline: Public Reprimand against Jorge Galvez for violations of Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 3.4(c) (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel), and 8.4(a) and (d) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In addition to the public reprimand, the District Court limited Mr. Galvez's practice in the following respects: Mr. Galvez shall not practice in United States District Court for two years, and shall not practice in Utah appellate courts for a period of eighteen months.

In summary:
On August 4, 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit disbarred Mr. Galvez and fined him. Mr. Galvez was counsel of record for three cases before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In one case, Mr. Galvez filed the notice of appeal, but nothing else.

In a second case, a direct criminal appeal, Mr. Galvez was retained as counsel in district court. Mr. Galvez made no filings and did not respond to deficiency letters. Mr. Galvez was struck from the appeal and substitute counsel was appointed. A disciplinary order to show cause was issued and he did not respond. Mr. Galvez was sanctioned and fined.

In a third case, a direct criminal appeal, Mr. Galvez filed a deficient motion to dismiss, and a deficient motion to withdraw. Both were denied. Mr. Galvez also filed deficient Anders briefs. The Court sent deficiency letters regarding the briefs and he never replied.

ADMONITION
On September 14, 2005, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court entered an Order of Admonition against an attorney for violations of Rules 1.4 (Communication), 1.5(b) (Fees), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
In three separate matters, the attorney believed that the attorney wrote the hourly fee on a piece of paper and showed it to the clients, but the clients stated the attorney did not do this. One client believed the representation was on a contingency basis and not an hourly rate. The other clients believed the attorney quoted them a flat fee. The attorney did not send billings on a regular basis, or did not send billings for extended periods.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On September 1, 2005, the Honorable Timothy Hanson, Third Judicial District Court, entered an Order of Discipline: Public Reprimand against Dolores Branin for violations of Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) (Communication), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct), of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
Ms. Branin was hired to file a bankruptcy and failed to do so and failed to return the client's calls. Ms. Branin also failed to respond to the Office of Professional Conduct's request for information and the Notice of Informal Complaint.

RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE
On September 13, 2005, the Honorable Anthony Quinn, Third Judicial District Court, entered an Order of Discipline: Public Reprimand against Gary Burnett for violations of Rules 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct), of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
On June 13, 2002 the Nevada State Bar publicly reprimanded Mr. Burnett. Mr. Burnett's misconduct in Nevada involved providing inaccurate information on his Application for Admission to Practice Law in the State of Nevada and failing to update the application. Mr. Burnett contended that the omissions were an oversight and not intended to mislead the Bar or the Nevada Supreme Court, but acknowledged that he had a responsibility to give accurate and updated information.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On September 14, 2005, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court entered an Order of Discipline: Public Reprimand against David C. VanCampen for violations of Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.15(b) (Safekeeping Property), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 5.3(b) (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants), and 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
Mr. VanCampen failed to appear for at least one scheduled court hearing on behalf of his client, failed to promptly provide an accounting of retainer funds as well as information concerning how those funds were used, failed to promptly return or refund the unused portion of the retainer after his services were terminated and failed to respond to the Office of Professional Conduct's request for information. Mr. VanCampen also attributes to his office manager/ paralegal his lack of communication and failure to respond to his client. Mr. VanCampen failed to supervise his office manager/ paralegal to ensure the assistant's conduct was compatible with Mr. VanCampen's ethical obligation.

ADMONITION
On September 19, 2005, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court entered an Order of Discipline: Admonition against an attorney for violations of Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) (Communication), and 5.3(b) (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants), of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
The attorney was hired to file a lawsuit. The attorney did not communicate the status of the investigation of the merits of the case to the client. The attorney did not communicate in writing the basis or rate of the attorney's fee and the fee exceeded $750.00. The attorney did not promptly return the files when requested and failed to supervise a paralegal in communications with the client.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On August 8, 2005, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court entered an Order of Discipline: Public Reprimand against Daniel Irvin for violations of Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(b) (Communication), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct), of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
Mr. Irvin, in representing a client in post divorce matters, failed to discuss the matter with his client. During a review hearing, the parties reached a stipulated settlement. The court ordered Mr. Irvin to finalize the proposed order to be submitted to the court. He failed to finalize the order. Mr. Irvin also failed to respond to the Office of Professional Conduct's Notice of Informal Complaint.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On August 8, 2005, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court entered an Order of Discipline: Public Reprimand against Daniel Irvin for violations of Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) (Communication), 1.4(b) (Communication), 1.5(c) (Fees), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct), of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
Mr. Irvin represented a client in four separate matters. Mr. Irvin had inadequate knowledge concerning how to obtain and execute a lien and failed to pursue the cases on behalf of the client. Mr. Irvin failed to respond timely to phone calls and e-mails from his client to keep the client informed about the cases and enable the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation. There was no written contingency fee agreement. When the representation terminated, Mr. Irvin did not take steps to ensure that the client's interests were protected, by failing to give proper notice to the client, failing to withdraw from a pending case, failing to discuss termination with the client, and failing to forward files to the client. Mr. Irvin also failed to respond to the Office of Professional Conduct's Notice of Informal Complaint.

RESIGNATION WITH DISCIPLINE PENDING
On October 12, 2005, the Honorable Christine M. Durham, Chief Justice, Utah Supreme Court, entered an Order Accepting Resignation with Discipline Pending concerning Jorge H. Galvez. On September 6, 2005, the Honorable Tyrone E. Medley, Third Judicial District Court, entered an Order of Interim Suspension, immediately suspending Mr. Galvez from the practice of law pending final disposition of the complaint filed against him.

In summary:
The Office of Professional Conduct ("OPC") received nine complaints against Mr. Galvez which were the basis of a Complaint filed against him in District Court. Mr. Galvez submitted a Petition for Resignation with Discipline Pending to the Utah Supreme Court on September 2, 2005 in which he admitted misconduct in the nine matters along with twelve additional matters. Although the facts were not adjudicated, Mr. Galvez's default was entered in the matters that were the basis of the Complaint, and the case was set for a sanctions hearing because of Mr. Galvez's failure to cooperate with discovery in violation of a court order compelling his cooperation. Mr. Galvez's petition admits that these facts along with the facts in the twelve additional matters constitute grounds for discipline. The facts established by default and admitted to by Mr. Galvez in the Petition for Resignation with Discipline Pending are that Mr. Galvez failed to diligently and competently pursue his clients' cases and missed court hearings; failed to communicate with clients; verbally accepted a settlement for two clients without first consulting with them; failed to communicate in writing contingency fees and fees exceeding $750; charged and collected excessive fees given the work performed; failed to return clients' files and refund unearned fees; misled two clients about the status of their child's case; practiced law while administratively suspended for non-payment of fees; and failed to respond to the OPC's requests for information.