Utah Bar Journal

In summary:
Mr. Roberts was hired to represent his client in a contested divorce. Mr. Roberts failed to adequately advise his client; failed to keep up on the matter's status after entering his appearance; failed to explain to his client what was required by Court orders; failed to advise his client of status updates; failed to maintain an attorney trust account; failed to account for his earned fee; failed to provide a written basis for his fee to his client; refused to communicate with his client about accounting and billing for fees; failed to provide an accounting; and failed to provide requested and necessary documentation to the OPC when required.

STAYED SUSPENSION
On March 20, 2006, the Honorable Timothy Hansen, Third Judicial District Court, entered an Order of Discipline: Suspension, Stayed During a Period of Probation, against Amy Boettger for violation of Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) (Communication), 1.5(a) (Fees), 1.5(b) (Fees), 1.6(a) (Confidentiality of Information), 1.15(a) (Safekeeping Property), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), 8.4(c) (Misconduct), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
Ms. Boettger was hired to assist a client in two matters. Ms. Boettger failed to demonstrate the necessary skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness; failed to keep her client reasonably informed about the status of the client's matters; collected fees for work not completed; failed to comply with reasonable requests for information from her client; and failed to provide, in writing, the rate or basis of her fee. Ms. Boettger's car was stolen when it had her client's file in it thereby revealing information concerning her representation of that client, and failing to safeguard the file. Upon termination, Ms. Boettger failed to take steps reasonably practicable to protect the interests of her client by failing to provide the file, surrender papers and other property to which her client was entitled. Ms. Boettger also made negligent representations to her client concerning the status of the work she was performing and knowingly failed to respond to the OPC's specific request for information.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND, PROBATION
On April 8, 2006, the Honorable Fred D. Howard, Fourth Judicial District Court, entered an Order of Discipline: Public Reprimand, Probation against S. Austin Johnson for violation of Rules 1.1 (Competence), 4.3(a) and (b) (Dealing with Unrepresented Person), 5.3(c) (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants), 8.4(d) (Misconduct), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
In one matter, Mr. Johnson represented a husband in a deportation matter. His client married a U.S. citizen five days prior to the date the citizen's divorce was final. Mr. Johnson filed a petition to modify the divorce nunc pro tunc in order for his client to remarry the citizen and not be deported. At the time the petition was filed, Mr. Johnson was out of state and had instructed his office staff to serve the petition on the citizen's former spouse, and get an acknowledgement from the spouse, who at the time was living out of state, that he would not oppose the petition. At a hearing concerning the petition, the judge informed Mr. Johnson that the signature of the former spouse on the acknowledgement did not match the signature on the divorce papers. Mr. Johnson did not represent either party in the original divorce. After investigation, Mr. Johnson's staff had contacted the former spouse who authorized that the staff sign the acknowledgement on his behalf. The staff then notarized the former spouse's signature as if he were present and filed that document with the Court.

In a second matter, Mr. Johnson filed a civil cause of action against a number of individuals, seeking damages for injuries that were caused in a massacre that occurred in Vietnam over 30 years ago. Mr. Johnson's office contacted one of the named defendants to solicit his involvement in the suit. Mr. Johnson requested the named defendant to stipulate that a judgment be entered against this individual and based on this stipulation Mr. Johnson would not collect on the judgment. The individual ignored contact from Mr. Johnson. About ten months after the complaint was served, based on the individual's refusal to respond, a certificate of default was entered against him. The individual obtained counsel to set aside the certificate of default. The judge in the case ruled that the individual may have been discouraged from seeking counsel by false representations concerning the individual's status, rights, and defenses as a defendant. Mr. Johnson was ordered to pay attorneys fees and costs. Mr. Johnson challenged the judge's ruling, and once all appeals failed, Mr. Johnson satisfied the judgment for attorneys fees and costs.

ADMONITION
On April 10, 2006, 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 3.5(d) (Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal) and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
The attorney repeatedly argued with a judge about the judge's ruling, making inappropriate and disrespectful comments.

ADMONITION
On April 10, 2006, 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), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) (Communication), 1.4(b) (Communication), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 3.2 (Expediting Litigation), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
The attorney was hired to modify child support on behalf of a client who was incarcerated. The attorney failed to serve the petition and summons in a timely fashion; and failed to accurately inform the client of the status of the service and process. The attorney failed to properly communicate by accepting and returning the client's phone calls. It was not until after the client filed a Bar complaint that the attorney communicated with the client. Upon withdrawal, the attorney failed to properly communicate and render an accounting to the client.

ADMONITION
On April 10, 2006, 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 attorney failed to respond to the Office of Professional Conduct's Notice of Informal Complaint.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On April 10, 2006, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court entered an Order of Discipline: Public Reprimand against Brandon Hodgkinson for violation of Rules 1.1 (Competence), 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:
Mr. Hodgkinson was hired to represent a client and the client's spouse in immigration matters. Mr. Hodgkinson sought to obtain a work permit on behalf of his client when it was not appropriate. Mr. Hodgkinson failed to respond to requests from Immigration for additional evidence. Mr. Hodgkinson failed to communicate the case status and respond to requests for information from his clients. When matters were pending Mr. Hodgkinson disappeared. Mr. Hodgkinson failed to protect his clients' interests by failing to give them notice of the termination of his services, and failing to return client files. Mr. Hodgkinson also failed to respond to the Office of Professional Conduct, and failed to attend the Screening Panel hearing in the matter.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On April 6, 2006, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court entered an Order of Discipline: Public Reprimand against Larry Larsen for violation of Rules 1.4(a) (Communication), 1.5(b) (Fees), 1.15(b) (Safekeeping Property), 1.15(c) (Safekeeping Property), and 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
Mr. Larsen was hired to assist a client in reducing alimony payments. Mr. Larsen did not keep his client informed and did not proceed as the client requested. Mr. Larsen made representations to his client that he had filed a motion and a hearing had been set concerning the motion when no motion had been filed and no hearing had been set. Mr. Larsen failed to provide documents to his client; failed to communicate the basis of his fee in writing; failed to provide an accounting for fees that had already been paid by the client, or any sort of billing; failed to promptly return phone calls; and failed to timely or adequately respond to requests for information from the Office of Professional Conduct.

SUSPENSION
On February 6, 2006, the Honorable L. A. Dever, Third Judicial District Court, entered a Ruling and Order re: Sanctions, suspending J. Keith Henderson from the practice of law, effective March 8, 2006, for one year for violation of Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 8.4(d) (Misconduct), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The order permits Mr. Henderson to petition the court to abate the period of suspension to three months with a nine-month supervised probation. A Notice of Appeal was filed in this matter on May 16, 2006.

In summary:
Mr. Henderson represented a client in a worker's compensation case who had also pursued a personal injury claim based on the same accident against a third party. Mr. Henderson failed to explain how the settlement in the personal injury case would impact the client's worker's compensation case. Mr. Henderson failed to ascertain the status of the personal injury case before filing the worker's compensation claim. The insurance company asserted a counterclaim against Mr. Henderson's client for reimbursement of money paid out since the client had received money from the personal injury settlement.

Mr. Henderson failed to provide the client copies of documents filed in the matter prior to the hearing in the case. After the hearing was continued to allow the parties to attempt to settle the matter, the client did not hear from Mr. Henderson for about five months. The client then received a letter from Mr. Henderson informing the client there could be no recovery on the claim.

Around the time of Mr. Henderson's letter, he was suspended from the practice of law. Mr. Henderson did not notify his client that he was suspended and could no longer represent the client and he failed to advise the client to seek another attorney or that he could represent himself pro se. Mr. Henderson did not provide the file to the client and he did not inform the client of an upcoming hearing in the case and the need for the client to attend.

When the administrative law judge ("ALJ") phoned Mr. Henderson to inquire about his failure to appear at the hearing, Mr. Henderson informed the ALJ that he had withdrawn from the case since it had settled, when in fact the case had not settled. The ALJ instructed Mr. Henderson to file a withdrawal so that the case could move forward. Mr. Henderson filed a notice of withdrawal nearly two years after the ALJ instructed him to do so.

RESIGNATION WITH DISCIPLINE PENDING
On June 1, 2006, the Honorable Christine M. Durham, Chief Justice, Utah Supreme Court, entered an Order Accepting Resignation with Discipline Pending concerning Victor M. Gordon, effective thirty days from the date of its entry.

In summary:
In one matter, Mr. Gordon represented a client on criminal charges. The court set a date for trial, informing both parties that the trial was not to be continued. Prior to the trial Mr. Gordon moved to continue the trial. The court heard the motion on the day of the trial. Mr. Gordon made arguments to the court that were not in his motion. The court denied the motion. After the motion was denied the court was informed that Mr. Gordon's client, who was in jail at the time, was not provided street clothes to wear to the trial. The court recessed to allow Mr. Gordon to take clothing to his client. Mr. Gordon informed jail personnel that he was ill and he went home. Mr. Gordon did not return to court nor did he inform the court of his illness. Mr. Gordon also left his client's file in the courtroom and failed to retrieve it. The court set another hearing to reschedule the trial. Mr. Gordon failed to appear and the court removed Mr. Gordon from the case based upon ineffective assistance of counsel.

In a second matter, Mr. Gordon represented a husband and wife concerning criminal charges. Mr. Gordon did not inform the clients of the possible conflict of interest of Mr. Gordon representing both of them, nor did he withdraw as counsel. The preliminary hearing was continued three times; twice because Mr. Gordon was significantly late and a third time because he failed to appear. Mr. Gordon was ordered to pay the prosecutor's costs for his failure to appear because each time the court, prosecutor, and witnesses were all present and ready to proceed.

In a third matter, Mr. Gordon represented a client in a divorce and custody matter. The client paid Mr. Gordon for the representation. Mr. Gordon did not have a written fee agreement or any other writing stating the basis or rate of his fee. Mr. Gordon prepared the wrong pleadings, and failed to file any pleadings on behalf of the client. During the representation, Mr. Gordon failed to keep the client reasonably informed of the case status. Mr. Gordon did not refund any of the money the client paid to him. Due to health problems, Mr. Gordon did not have the ability to competently and diligently represent his client.

In a fourth matter, Mr. Gordon failed to timely return sixteen books he checked out from the S. J. Quinney Law Library. Mr. Gordon eventually returned eleven of them over a year after they were overdue. The remaining five books were returned almost two years later.

In a fifth matter, Mr. Gordon was administratively suspended from the practice of law for failing to comply with mandatory continuing legal education ("MCLE") requirements. During his suspension Mr. Gordon attended a hearing on behalf of a client where a commissioner asked Mr. Gordon if he was authorized to practice law and he answered in the affirmative. The commissioner proceeded with the hearing. Prior to the hearing, Mr. Gordon contacted the Office of Professional Conduct concerning his status with the Bar. He was informed that his license was suspended for failure to comply with MCLE.

PROBATION
On May 2, 2006, the Honorable Denise Lindberg, Third Judicial District Court, entered Amended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of Discipline, suspending Steven Crawley from the practice of law for violation of Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.2(a) (Scope of Representation), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) (Communication), 8.4(c) (Misconduct), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct). The original Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order were entered by the Honorable Deno Himonas on February 9, 2006. The suspension is stayed, and Mr. Crawley is placed on an 18 month probation subject to certain conditions. A Notice of Appeal was filed in this matter on May 16, 2006.

In summary:
Mr. Crawley was part of a firm and represented a client in two matters. In the first matter, as part of his client's primary claim and third-party claims, the claims would have been enhanced by an expert report or affidavit. Mr. Crawley failed to obtain an expert report or affidavit. Thereafter, the client lost some of the third-party claims for lack of any supporting evidence, which included an expert report. The court assessed attorney fees against Mr. Crawley's client in two of the third-party claims, dismissed the third-party claims, and entered a partial summary judgment against Mr. Crawley's client. Mr. Crawley failed to advise his client of the assessment of attorneys' fees as well as the dismissal of the third-party claims. Mr. Crawley misrepresented the status to both his client and the firm.

In the second matter, Mr. Crawley represented the client in a breach of contract claim. The client counterclaimed for breach of contract and negligence. The client's case depended on obtaining an expert report. The court entered summary judgment against the client for failure to present an expert report or affidavit in its cross claim. Mr. Crawley informed his clients that the cross claim was dismissed for reasons other than the actual reasons. An amended judgment was awarded against Mr. Crawley's client. The client wanted to pursue an appeal and Mr. Crawley informed the client that he would, and in fact had filed an appeal. Mr. Crawley did not file an appeal on behalf of the client.

Mr. Crawley was also in charge of renewing the professional negligence insurance coverage for the firm. On the form he filled out, he marked "no" to a question concerning whether there were any acts, omissions, or circumstances that would give rise to a professional liability claim against the firm or its lawyers. Mr. Crawley should have been aware that his acts and omissions could give rise to a professional liability claim in the two above mentioned matters, but did not disclose the information.