Utah Bar Journal

In summary:
The attorney failed to timely draft and file an order as instructed by the court to do so on behalf of the attorney’s client. The attorney failed to keep the client reasonably informed of the case status and failed to respond to the client’s phone calls. The attorney failed to properly explain the legal work necessary to accomplish the client’s desired result. The attorney’s failure to do so resulted in the client’s misunderstanding of the attorney’s scope of representation and the necessary legal work to accomplish the client’s goals. Mitigating factors were: absence of a prior record of discipline; absence of a dishonest or selfish motive; personal or emotional problems; and full and free disclosure to the client or the disciplinary authority prior to the discovery of any misconduct or cooperative attitude toward proceedings.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On November 3, 2006, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court entered an Order of Discipline: Public Reprimand against Mark R. Emmett for violation of Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.5(a) (Fees), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
In a bankruptcy matter, Mr. Emmett failed to manage his caseload in order for him to provide competent services to his client, which led to the dismissal of the client’s bankruptcy. Mr. Emmett failed to submit the required documents to the bankruptcy court to proceed with his client’s case. Mr. Emmett admittedly failed to keep his client reasonably informed and failed to comply with the client’s requests for information. Mr. Emmett charged his client for work not completed, and for work completed without meaningful results.

RESIGNATION WITH DISCIPLINE PENDING
On November 8, 2006, the Honorable Christine M. Durham, Chief Justice, Utah Supreme Court, entered an Order Accepting Resignation with Discipline Pending concerning Craig P. Orrock.

In summary:
Mr. Orrock failed to fully account for funds in his trust account.

SUSPENSION
On October 30, 2006, the Honorable Sandra N. Peuler, Third Judicial District Court, entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Order of Discipline: Suspension suspending Karen Thomas for six months from the practice of law for violations of Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) (Communication), 1.5(a) (Fees), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 3.2 (Expediting Litigation), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Ms. Thomas’s suspension was effective thirty days from the date of its entry.

In summary:
Ms. Thomas was hired to finalize an adoption, in which the natural mother had agreed to relinquish her parental rights. The client paid Ms. Thomas for the drafting of the adoption agreement, the finalization of the adoption and the filing fee. The client notified Ms. Thomas of the birth of the baby. The client took the baby home from the hospital. Five weeks after the baby’s birth, Ms. Thomas had not arranged for the natural mother to sign the required relinquishment papers in front of a signing judge. The client left numerous messages for Ms. Thomas concerning the status of the relinquishment. Ms. Thomas failed to keep the client informed of the status and failed to promptly comply with the client’s requests for information. Ms. Thomas informed her client that the delay was due in part because the signing judge was out of town. The natural mother became frustrated with Ms. Thomas and the delay. The client arranged, on her own, for the natural mother to appear before the judge to sign the relinquishment papers. At the hearing, the natural mother demanded that the baby be returned. The court ordered that the client return the baby within an hour’s time. Ms. Thomas informed the client that she would help the client try to get the baby back without charge to the client. Ms. Thomas did not earn the fees she collected from the client. Ms. Thomas collected an excessive fee given the work performed in the adoption.

ADMONITION
On October 20, 2006, 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 Rule 1.3 (Diligence), 1.16(c) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
In a custody case, the attorney failed to follow up with opposing counsel regarding a stipulation and other issues that required action, or enforcement. The attorney failed to pursue the issue before the court concerning the opposing party’s relocation to another state although a stipulation was in place for joint legal custody. The attorney failed to provide the court and the client notice of the attorney’s withdrawal in the case.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On October 20, 2006, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court entered an Order of Discipline: Public Reprimand against Alejandro Maynez for violations of Rules 1.4(a) (Communication), 1.4(b) (Communication), 3.3(a)(1) (Candor Towards the Tribunal), 3.3(a)(4) (Candor Towards the Tribunal), 3.4(b) (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel), 4.1(a) (Truthfulness in Statements to Others), 8.4(c) (Misconduct), 8.4(d) (Misconduct), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
In a bankruptcy matter, Mr. Maynez changed the signing date of his client’s signature and estimated the client’s financial figures to correspond with the new signing date. Mr. Maynez did not consult with his client concerning the changes. The altered documents were filed with the court and without the client’s authority. Mr. Maynez was not candid with the trustee concerning the change in the documents. Mitigating factors were: remorse; candor to the Ethics and Discipline Committee’s Screening Panel; attempt to resolve harm to client and Trustee; and Mr. Maynez’s self report of the matter to the OPC, albeit under threat that the bankruptcy Trustee would report the conduct if Mr. Maynez did not report it.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On October 12, 2006, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court entered an Order of Discipline: Public Reprimand against Philip Danielson for violations of Rules 1.4(b) (Communication), 1.15(b) (Safekeeping of Property), 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:
After being hired for a criminal matter, Mr. Danielson left the law firm he was with, turning all of his cases over to another attorney. Mr. Danielson’s failure to communicate the reasons for his withdrawal did not allow his clients to make informed decisions. Mr. Danielson failed to give his clients adequate notice of his withdrawal. Mr. Danielson failed to provide an accounting until long after it was requested by his client. Mr. Danielson knowingly failed to respond to requests for information by the OPC.

SUSPENSION
On October 4, 2006, the Honorable Judith Atherton, Third Judicial District Court, entered an Order of Discipline: Six Month Suspension suspending Gordon W. DeBoer from the practice of law for violations of Rules 8.1(a) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), 8.4(c) (Misconduct), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
Mr. DeBoer made false statements or omitted material facts on his application for admission to the Utah State Bar.

ADMONITION
On October 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 violations of Rules 1.4(b) (Communication), 5.1(b) (Responsibilities of a Partner or Supervisory Lawyer), 7.1(a) (Communications Concerning a Lawyer’s Services), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
The attorney was in a supervisory role in the firm. A client approached the attorney when the client was having problems with another attorney in the firm. The attorney agreed to take the case from the other attorney. After taking the case, the attorney failed to explain statute of limitations issues. The attorney failed to take reasonable efforts to ensure the performance of the other attorney, who was a new attorney. The attorney also held out the nature of the law practice as a firm when it was not.

ADMONITION
On October 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 violations of Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.5(b) (Fees), 1.6(a) (Confidentiality of Information), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
The attorney was hired to defend a notice to vacate. The attorney failed to follow-up on the changes made by the client to the complaint. The attorney did not have a signed fee agreement with the client, which would have evidenced that the attorney communicated the basis and rate of his fee to his client. The attorney shared confidential information with another attorney, not associated with the attorney, without the client’s consent.