Utah Bar Journal

In summary:
The Third Judicial 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 section 76-4-401. The Court in the disciplinary matter found that Mr. CohenÕs criminal act reflects adversely on his fitness as a lawyer. The Court also found that Mr. Cohen engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation by misrepresenting his age to the agent for the Utah Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, who posed as a 13-year-old.

INTERIM SUSPENSION
On December 1, 2005, the Honorable Anthony B. Quinn, Third Judicial District Court, entered an Order of Interim Suspension, suspending Wesley Sine from the practice of law pending final disposition of the Complaint filed against him.

In summary:
On February 4, 2005, Mr. Sine was found guilty of four counts of mail fraud in violation of United States Code, Title 18, section 1341. The interim suspension is based upon this conviction pursuant to Rule 19 of the Rules of Lawyer Discipline and Disability.

RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE
On December 21, 2005, the Honorable Robert K. Hilder, Third Judicial District Court, entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of Reciprocal Discipline: Disbarment against Robert F. Dodenbier for violations of Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.2(a) (Scope of Representation), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) and (b) (Communication), 1.5(c) (Fees), 1.7(b) (Conflict of Interest: General Rule), 1.16(a) (d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 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. Dodenbier was disbarred from the practice of law by the Supreme Court of the State of California. The disbarment was based on two underlying matters.

In the first matter, Mr. Dodenbier was hired to represent two clients in a personal injury matter. One client signed a contingency fee agreement, while the other did not. There was no documentation that excluded one client from representation, or a written waiver of any potential conflict of interest. Mr. Dodenbier failed to serve notice on the entities being sued. He filed suit on behalf of one client after which he did nothing further to pursue the case. The clients began contacting Mr. Dodenbier. Mr. Dodenbier informed them that the matter was being settled. During his representation of the clients, he moved offices and did not provide them with new contact information.

In the second matter, Mr. Dodenbier was hired to represent a client in a child support and custody matter. Mr. Dodenbier failed to file the necessary documents on behalf of his client. Mr. Dodenbier stipulated, without his client's consent, to a reduction in support payments and joint legal custody. Mr. Dodenbier also failed to inform his client of hearings, failed to consult his client concerning continuations in the case, and failed to appear for a hearing. After the client retained new counsel, Mr. Dodenbier failed to return the client's file.

The California Order of Disbarment set forth the following aggravating factors:

1. Mr. Dodenbier had two prior instances of discipline.

2. Mr. Dodenbier engaged in multiple acts of misconduct.

3. Mr. Dodenbier's misconduct significantly harmed his clients.

4. Mr. Dodenbier demonstrated indifference toward rectification of the consequences of his misconduct.

There were no mitigating factors.

ADMONITION
On December 21, 2005, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee entered an Order of Discipline: Admonition against an attorney for violation of 1.5(b) (Fees), 1.15(b) (Safekeeping Property), and 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
The attorney was hired for a criminal matter and the retainer was paid by a third party. The attorney did not have a written fee agreement or written explanation of how the fee was to be paid beyond the retainer. The client requested that the attorney file income taxes on behalf of the client. The client signed a power of attorney permitting the attorney to take over the tax refund. The attorney did not render an accounting of the tax refund. The attorney failed to provide attorney trust account records to the OPC.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On November 22, 2005, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court entered an Order of Discipline: Public Reprimand against David VanCampen for violation of Rules 1.4(c) (Communication), and 3.2 (Expediting Litigation) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
Mr. VanCampen was hired for a criminal matter. Mr. VanCampen did not adequately advise his client. Mr. VanCampen communicated to his client in a minimal way even though his client required more information to help the client understand the risks the client faced concerning the criminal conviction. Mr. VanCampen, on at least one occasion, failed to appear and the court appointed other counsel to finish the case.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On November 22, 2005, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court entered an Order of Discipline: Public Reprimand against Richard Hackwell for violation of Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
Mr. Hackwell was hired to pursue an action against a public entity as well as pursuing a reduction of the client's conviction. Mr. Hackwell failed to appear at a conviction reduction hearing. Mr. Hackwell failed to notify his client of a court date in the public entity action. Mr. Hackwell failed to respond to his client's attempts to contact him. Mr. Hackwell failed to appear for a hearing in the public entity action and the case was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Mr. Hackwell took no action on behalf of his client, took no steps to withdraw from the action and failed to give any notice to his client.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On November 22, 2005, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court entered an Order of Discipline: Public Reprimand against Brent E. Johns for violation of Rules 1.2 (a) (Scope of Representation), 1.8(f) (Conflict of Interest: Prohibited Transactions), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
Mr. Johns was hired to represent a mother and the mother's new husband where the child's father would relinquish parental rights in exchange for the mother's waiver of past due child support. The birth father was not the client, but paid Mr. Johns's fees. Mr. Johns filed an adoption decree which did not include the stipulation of waiving past due child support. The birth father insisted that Mr. Johns file another decree with the court that included the waiver. Mr. Johns knew his client's then-decision that she was not willing to waive the past due child support but he filed an amended decree that contained the waiver.

ADMONITION
On November 22, 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 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
The OPC received an overdraft notice on the attorneyÕs trust account. The OPC sent requests for information concerning the overdraft to the attorney. The attorney took more than four months to supply the OPC with the requested financial information.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On December 15, 2005, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court entered an Order of Discipline: Public Reprimand against Curt W. Morris for violation of Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) (Communication), 1.4(b) (Communication), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
Mr. Morris was hired to filed a chapter 13 bankruptcy on behalf of a client to stop the foreclosure on the client's home. Mr. Morris failed to file the chapter 13 bankruptcy before the deadline. Mr. Morris did not keep his client informed about the progress of the matter. Mr. Morris failed to timely remind his client that the client needed to meet with him prior to the bankruptcy filing. Mr. Morris's staff informed the client that they would call her for an appointment and either failed to do so or failed to make a new appointment with the client, or warn the client when the client allegedly cancelled the first appointment.

RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE
On January 6, 2006, the Honorable Sandra N. Peuler, Third Judicial District Court entered an Order of Discipline: Admonition against an attorney for violations of Rules 5.5(a) (Unauthorized Practice of Law), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
The attorney was placed on an administrative suspension for non-payment of membership fees. During the suspension, the attorney practiced law.

ADMONITION
On December 21, 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 1.1 (Competence), 1.15(b) (Safekeeping Property), and 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
The attorney was hired for a personal injury matter, a debt collection matter, and a bankruptcy. During the course of the bankruptcy the attorney did not discover and discharge the lien associated with the debt collection matter. The attorney did not notify the previous attorney that handled the personal injury matter of the settlement and failed to protect the previous attorney's lien. The attorney also failed to secure and provide trust account documents to the OPC.

ADMONITION
On September 15, 2005, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court entered an Order of Admonition against an attorney for violation of Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) (Communication), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
The attorney was retained for a personal injury matter. The attorney did not return the client's calls or reply to the client's letter requesting a status update. The client made several requests that the attorney pursue the case, but the attorney did not progess the matter. After the client terminated the relationship with the attorney, the client learned that the matter should have been filed in another jurisdiction and that the statute of limitations had already passed in that jurisdiction.