Utah Bar Journal

In summary:
On two occasions concerning the same client, Mr. Jensen failed to supervise his non-lawyer assistants. On the first occasion, one of Mr. Jensen’s non-lawyer assistants obtained the client’s husband’s signature on documents. Another of Mr. Jensen’s non-lawyer assistants then notarized the client’s signature on the documents without being present at the time the signing of the documents.

On the second occasion, the non-lawyer assistant signed for and notarized the client’s name to a release form without indicating that the release was signed based on the power of attorney.

RESIGNATION WITH DISCIPLINE PENDING
On March 14, 2007, the Honorable Christine M. Durham, Chief Justice, Utah Supreme Court, entered an Order Accepting Resignation with Discipline Pending, effective November 9, 2005, the date of his interim suspension, concerning Howard Johnson.

In summary:
Mr. Johnson pled guilty to one count of Unlawful Sexual Activity With a Minor, pursuant to Utah Code Annotated section 76-5-401, a third degree felony; and pled guilty as an Alford plea to one count of Enticing a Minor Over the Internet, pursuant to Utah Code Annotated section 76-4-401, a class A misdemeanor.

ADMONITION
On March 14, 2007, 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 Rule 1.15(b) (Safekeeping Property) and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
In a personal injury case, an attorney received a settlement check from an insurance company. A lien holder, a medical service provider, had a claim to the settlement monies. However, the attorney used a large portion of the settlement funds in trust to pay a doctor’s witness fees without the lien holder’s agreeing to this use of the money it was claiming.

RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE
On February 26, 2007, the Honorable Pamela Heffernan, Second Judicial District Court, entered an Order of Discipline by Consent: Public Reprimand against Roy Cole for violation of Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 8.4(d) (Misconduct), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
In an appeal before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Mr. Cole failed to make his appearance, order a transcript, file a docketing statement, and submit a filing fee in a timely fashion; all after he received notice from the court, and the deadline to comply was extended. Thereafter, Mr. Cole filed a deficient docketing statement. Although the court notified Mr. Cole of the deficiencies and gave him additional time to comply, Mr. Cole failed to correct the deficiencies. Mr. Cole also filed a deficient motion to appoint new counsel, which was denied giving Mr. Cole an express directive on how to proceed. Mr. Cole took no action. The Tenth Circuit then issued an Order to Show Cause for his failure to comply to which Mr. Cole submitted an inappropriate pleading attempting to explain his conduct. The Tenth Circuit entered an order removing Mr. Cole from the case, and suspending him from appearing before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals for a period of not less than three months.

INTERIM SUSPENSION
On March 12, 2007, the Honorable Glenn K. Iwasaki, Third Judicial District Court, entered an Order of Interim Suspension, suspending Larry A. Kirkham from the practice of law pending final disposition of the Complaint filed against him.

In summary:
On February 21, 2007, Mr. Kirkham was convicted of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol/Drugs (with priors), Utah Code Annotated section 41-6a-502, a third-degree felony. The interim suspension is based upon this conviction pursuant to Rule 14-519 of the Rules of Lawyer Discipline and Disability.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On February 28, 2007, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court entered an Order of Discipline: Public Reprimand against Matthew Storey for violation of Rules 5.3(b) (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants), 5.3(c) (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants), 8.4(c) (Misconduct), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
Mr. Storey directed his paralegal to sign his client’s name to a settlement release pursuant to a power of attorney. Mr. Storey’s paralegal signed the client’s name to the release without indicating that the release was being signed pursuant to a power of attorney. The paralegal then signed the release as a witness to the client’s signature when in fact the client had not signed it.

DISBARMENT
On February 14, 2007, the Honorable Denise Lindberg, Third Judicial District Court, entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment of Disbarment, disbarring Kevan Eyre from the practice of law, effective October 26, 2005, the date of his interim suspension, for violations of Rules 8.4(b) (Misconduct, 8.4(c) (Misconduct), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
Mr. Eyre was convicted of six counts of failing to render a proper tax return in violation of Utah Code section 76-8-1101(a)(c)(i), a third degree felony, and six counts of intent to defeat the payment of a tax in violation of Utah Code section 76-8-1101(1)(d)(i), a second degree felony. The crimes committed reflect adversely on Mr. Eyre’s honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness as a lawyer.

ADMONITION
On February 28, 2007, 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(b) (Safekeeping Property), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
In a criminal matter, the attorney destroyed the client’s file which included the client’s vehicle title. The attorney did not take reasonable or prompt efforts to assist the client in replacing the file or the vehicle title. There was little or no harm to the client.

DISBARMENT
On February 20, 2007, the Honorable Joseph C. Fratto, Jr., Third Judicial District Court, entered an Order of Discipline: Disbarment, disbarring Geoffrey L. Clark from the practice of law, effective December 13, 2004, the date of his interim suspension, for violations of Rules 8.4(b) (Misconduct), 8.4(c) (Misconduct), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
On September 14, 2005, Mr. Clark was convicted of Attempted Distribute/Offer/Arrange to Distribute a Controlled Substance, Utah Code Annotated section 58-37-8(1)(a)(ii), a third degree felony; Possession of a Controlled Substance, Utah Code Annotated section 58-37-8(2)(a)(i), a third degree felony; Attempted False/ Inconsistent Material Statement, Utah Code Annotated section 76-8-502, a third degree felony; and Simple Assault, Utah Code Annotated section 76-5-102, a class A misdemeanor. The convictions reflect adversely on Mr. Clark’s honesty, trustworthiness and fitness as a lawyer.

PROBATION
On February 14, 2007, the Honorable Wallace A. Lee, Sixth Judicial District Court, entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of Discipline suspending Richard L. Musick from the practice of law for a period of one year, with the suspension stayed in favor of probation for a period of one year, for violations of Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 3.2 (Expediting Litigation), 3.4(d) (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), 8.4(d) (Misconduct), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
In one matter, Mr. Musick failed to notify his client of outstanding discovery requests, failed to respond to those discovery requests, failed to respond to a motion to compel and a motion to dismiss, and failed to overall communicate with his client. Mr. Musick abandoned his client without taking steps to protect the client including failing to file a withdrawal and providing the file to the client. Mr. Musick’s failures to respond not only delayed the case but caused harm to the client. Mr. Musick’s conduct also caused the court to expend time and resources in addressing his failures to represent his client. Mr. Musick also failed to respond to the Office of Professional Conduct’s Notice of Informal Complaint.

In a second matter, Mr. Musick filed two separate personal injury cases on behalf of one client. In the first action filed, Mr. Musick abandoned his client by failing to diligently represent the client and by failing to formally withdraw from the case. In the second action filed, the case was dismissed because Mr. Musick failed to ensure that the complaint was served in a timely manner. Mr. Musick also failed to withdraw from the case to protect his client’s interests. In both cases Mr. Musick failed to communicate and adequately explain information to the client to keep the client informed and able to make informed decisions. Mr. Musick also failed to respond to the Office of Professional Conduct’s Notice of Informal Complaint.

ADMONITION
On February 12, 2007, 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 1.3 (Diligence), 5.3(b) (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
In an immigration matter, an attorney failed to perform a diligent review of the client’s file which evidenced that the client was illegally in the country. The attorney also failed to review the work of the attorney’s paralegal.

ADMONITION
On February 12, 2007, 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) and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
An attorney ordered that a client’s file and documents be destroyed less than 90 days after the termination of the representation. The notice given to the client regarding the destruction was inadequate in light of a subsequent phone call from the client followed up by a postcard from the client.

ADMONITION
On March 20, 2007, 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 8.4(d) (Misconduct) and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
In a criminal matter, an attorney failed to appear for a scheduled hearing and had no excuse for not appearing at the hearing.

SUSPENSION
On March 21, 2007, the Honorable Bruce C. Lubeck, Third Judicial District Court, entered an Order of Discipline: Suspension, suspending James L. Stith from the practice of law for a period of twenty-one (21) months for violation of Rules 1.2 (Scope of Representation), 1.4(a) (Communication), 3.3(a)(4) (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), 8.4(b) (Misconduct), 8.4(c) (Misconduct), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
On behalf of a client, Mr. Stith extended and entered into a settlement offer. The offer was accepted, however Mr. Stith did not provide any of the proposed settlement documents to his client. Unaware that the settlement had been reached, the client instructed that the offer be withdrawn, and Mr. Stith conveyed the withdrawal by letter stating that the offer was withdrawn because of damage to the property that was subject of the settlement and a typographical error in the original offer. The error was a difference of a year in the payoff date of the agreement. Opposing counsel filed a motion to enforce the settlement. In response to the motion to enforce, Mr. Stith filed his reply along with an affidavit that purported to be from his client. The affidavit was not false from the standpoint that if the client had reviewed the affidavit, he was in agreement with the substance of the affidavit. However, Mr. Stith’s client did not approve or sign the affidavit. The motion to enforce was granted and served on Mr. Stith. Mr. Stith did not object. Thereafter, the court awarded attorney fees to opposing counsel. Mr. Stith did not inform his client that an award for attorney fees was entered and that the client was under an obligation to pay attorney fees. Opposing counsel on several occasions communicated with Mr. Stith concerning the paying of the attorney fees. Opposing counsel filed a motion seeking entry of judgment, which was granted by the court. Thereafter, the client terminated Mr. Stith’s representation. Mr. Stith also failed to respond to the Office of Professional Conduct’s Notice of Informal Complaint.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND, PROBATION
On March 5, 2007, the Honorable David L. Mower, Fifth Judicial District Court, entered an Order of Discipline: Public Reprimand, [Six-Month] Probation against Shawn T. Farris for violations of Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) (Communication), 1.4(b) (Communication), 8.4(c) (Misconduct), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
In a civil action, Mr. Farris failed to respond to discovery requests. Mr. Farris also failed to respond to a Motion to Compel Discovery. The court granted the Motion to Compel and awarded attorney’s fees. Mr. Farris failed to comply with the order and failed to inform his clients of the order. Thereafter the court granted the opposing counsel’s Motion to Dismiss. Mr. Farris did not inform his clients of the dismissal. Mr. Farris failed to keep his client apprised of the status of the case and failed to timely respond to his clients’ requests for information about the case. Mr. Farris failed to timely inform and explain developments in the case to his clients. After the dismissal of the case, Mr. Farris informed his clients that the case had been set for trial, but then the trial setting had been vacated and he was working to get it back on the court’s calendar. Mr. Farris filed a notice of appeal, but did not inform his clients of his actions. Mitigation: Absence of prior discipline; cooperative attitude toward proceedings; inexperience in the practice of law; and remorse.