Utah Bar Journal

In summary:
Mr. Hanna represented a client in several matters. Mr. Hanna represented the client on a contingency basis without a written agreement. Prior to the client’s death, the client named Mr. Hanna as the personal representative to the client’s estate and trustee on the trust for the client. Mr. Hanna also represented the client’s company. The client named Mr. Hanna as sole director of the company. Mr. Hanna claims that he and the client also entered into an oral agreement that Mr. Hanna would receive all settlements, if any were obtained by the company from a lawsuit, as payment for his services for the company and personal assistance to the client. The agreement was never put in writing. Mr. Hanna claims that he also loaned the client money although the client did not consent to the terms of the loan in writing. Mr. Hanna did not advise the client about seeking independent counsel concerning the terms of the loan. After the client’s death, Mr. Hanna failed to probate the client’s will and fund the trust. Mr. Hanna made some distributions but did not complete the estate in accordance with the will or trust. The company received the settlement from the lawsuit after the client’s death. Mr. Hanna received the entire amount of the settlement from the litigation. To the extent that the settlement was fee compensation for Mr. Hanna, the fees were excessive as there was no evidence that it was earned. Mr. Hanna failed to timely notify heirs and beneficiaries of the client about the settlement. Mr. Hanna made a misrepresentation by failing to notify an heir of its interest in the estate. Mr. Hanna participated in a settlement that required the client’s children to request the withdrawal of the complaint filed with the Office of Professional Conduct by the children’s previous attorney as part of a global settlement of a civil lawsuit.

SUSPENSION
On February 21, 2008, the Honorable Stephen Henriod, Third Judicial District Court, entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of Discipline: Suspending Larry G. Reed from the practice of law for 30 days, effective February 21, 2008, for violation of Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) (Communication), 1.4(b) (Communication), 1.5(b) (Fees), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 3.2 (Expediting Litigation), 3.3(a)(1) (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 3.4(d) (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel), 4.4 (Respect of Rights of Third Persons), 5.1(b) (Responsibilities of a Partner or Supervisory Lawyer), 5.1(c) (Responsibilities of a Partner or Supervisory Lawyer), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), 8.4(c) (Misconduct), 8.4(d) (Misconduct), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
In one matter, a client’s case was transferred to Mr. Reed’s firm. The associate who originally took on the case left Mr. Reed’s firm and did not take the client’s case. Mr. Reed received all pleadings and correspondence from opposing counsel and failed to respond to a motion for partial summary judgment. Judgment was entered into against the client. The client was notified of the judgment after opposing counsel sent the client a letter stating that the opposing party was pursuing a debt collection action against the client based on the judgment. Mr. Reed told the client he would file a motion to set aside the judgment, which he failed to do. The client was served with a writ of execution. Mr. Reed again told the client that he would file another motion to set aside and an objection to the writ of execution. The client did not receive any documents from Mr. Reed and Mr. Reed did not file any pleadings on behalf of the client.
In a second matter, Mr. Reed failed to cooperate with opposing counsel in setting his client’s deposition prior to the client’s criminal trial. Opposing counsel made two motions to compel. After the first Motion to Compel was granted because Mr. Reed failed to appear for the hearing, Mr. Reed filed a Motion to Reconsider Order on Motion to Compel and for Sanction. The court reset the matter for another hearing, which Mr. Reed failed to appear for. The court imposed the original order on the original Motion to Compel, which required Mr. Reed and his client to appear for a deposition and granted attorney fees and costs. Mr. Reed and his client failed to appear for the court ordered deposition. Subsequently, opposing counsel sought additional attorneys fees and costs which the court awarded. Thereafter, Mr. Reed filed a notice of withdrawal. Mr. Reed also failed to respond to the Office of Professional Conduct’s Notice of Informal Complaint.

In a third matter, Mr. Reed was hired to obtain a TRO to restrain the issuance or registration of shares of stock by a transfer company. Mr. Reed informed the client that the TRO could be obtained within a short amount of time. The client began calling Mr. Reed for status updates after the TRO had not been issued. Many of the calls went unanswered although some communication was done through email. After the TRO was served, the client continued to call Mr. Reed for status updates, many of which went unanswered. The client received an email from Mr. Reed’s former secretary that Mr. Reed had moved out of the office and referred the client to another attorney. Thereafter, Mr. Reed filed a withdrawal of counsel. Mr. Reed also failed to respond to the Office of Professional Conduct’s Notice of Informal Complaint.
Mr. Reed’s misconduct was directly and causally related to a substance abuse problem for which Mr. Reed has had a meaningful period of rehabilitation.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On February 25, 2008, 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 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) (Communication), 1.4(b) (Communication), 1.5(a) (Fees), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
Mr. VanCampen failed to appear at two hearings on behalf of his client, and did not inform his client that he would not be appearing. Mr. VanCampen failed to communicate to the client the basis of his attorney fees, fee arrangement, and the terms of the representation. Mr. VanCampen failed to respond to his client’s requests for information and failed to advise the client of the current status of his case so that the client could make informed decisions regarding the representation. Mr. VanCampen failed to adequately communicate to the client or to the court that he was withdrawing and failed to file a withdrawal notice.

RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE
On January 9, 2008, the Honorable Anthony B. Quinn, Third Judicial District Court, entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of Reciprocal Discipline: Reprimand and Suspension suspending D. Bruce Oliver from the practice of law for a period of one year, effective February 8, 2008, for violation of Rules 3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions), 3.2 (Expediting Litigation), 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent to the order of discipline being entered by the Third District Court, Mr. Oliver filed an appeal with the Utah Supreme Court, which included a request that his suspension be stayed pending the appeal. The appeal is still pending, however, the Supreme Court denied the motion to stay Mr. Oliver’s suspension on February 19, 2008.

In summary:
On April 4, 2007, the United States District Court through its disciplinary process entered a Public Reprimand and Disciplinary Order publicly reprimanding and suspending Mr. Oliver for one year. In at least 18 different cases before the United States District Court, Mr. Oliver violated Rules of Professional Conduct. In some of the cases, Mr. Oliver violated Rule 3.1 and 8.4(a) by filing frivolous complaints, claims and/or contentions. And in other cases Mr. Oliver violated Rules 3.2, 3.4, and 8.4(a) by failing to respond to orders to show cause, failing to respond to proper discovery requests, and failing to withdraw frivolous claims either upon request by opposing counsel or when dispositive motions were filed relative to those claims. Based upon the findings of the U.S. District Court Disciplinary Panel, the Third District Court entered its order of equivalent reciprocal discipline.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On February 14, 2008, 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 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) (Communication), 1.4(b) (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:
In a criminal matter, Mr. VanCampen was hired to help the client enter a plea and file an appeal. Mr. VanCampen failed to communicate to the client the terms of representation, termination, and fee arrangements. Mr. VanCampen failed to notify the client that he would not file the appeal on behalf of the client. Mr. VanCampen did not inform the client of the case status to allow the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation. Mr. VanCampen failed to keep records evidencing any communications or notifications to his client that he was terminating the representation. Mr. VanCampen failed to file a notice of withdrawal. Mr. VanCampen failed to protect and preserve the client’s file during an office move in which it was destroyed. Mr. VanCampen also failed to respond to the Office of Professional Conduct’s requests for information.

ADMONITION
On February 6, 2008, 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), 1.4(a) (Communication), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
The attorney was hired to represent a client in a bankruptcy in which an adversary proceeding was initiated against the client. The attorney failed to respond to the client’s requests for information or promptly participate in settlement discussions with opposing counsel to protect the client’s home from foreclosure. The attorney also failed to respond to the Office of Professional Conduct’s requests for information.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On February 6, 2008, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court entered an Order of Discipline: Public Reprimand against Justin K. Roberts for violation of Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) (Communication), 1.5(a) (Fees), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 3.2 (Expediting Litigation), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
In divorce proceedings, Mr. Roberts failed to take any action for several months to move the client’s case forward. Mr. Roberts failed to communicate with the client. Mr. Roberts failed to include a disgorgement provision in his fee agreement. Mr. Roberts failed to return the unearned portion of the flat fee, failed to return the client’s file, and failed to file a notice of withdrawal.

DISBARMENT
On January 25, 2008, the Honorable Glenn K. Iwasaki, Third Judicial District Court, entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of Disbarment disbarring H. Russell Hettinger from the practice of law, effective January 25, 2008, for violation of Rules 1.2(a) (Scope of Representation), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) (Communication), 1.4(b) (Communication), 1.5(a) (Fees), 1.15(d) (Safekeeping 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:
In one matter, Mr. Hettinger was hired to represent a client in divorce proceedings. Mr. Hettinger failed to promptly respond to the client’s requests for information. Mr. Hettinger informed the client that the divorce could be completed within a short period of time, however, Mr. Hettinger failed to take the necessary steps to finalize it. Mr. Hettinger overcharged his client for the amount of work that he performed. Mr. Hettinger failed to return funds to the client and failed to withdraw in a timely manner. After the client retained a new attorney, Mr. Hettinger failed to communicate with the attorney. Mr. Hettinger also failed to respond to the Office of Professional Conduct’s (“OPC”) Notice of Informal Complaint (“NOIC”).

In a second matter, Mr. Hettinger was hired and paid to prepare a will. After the client paid Mr. Hettinger, no work was performed and the client left several messages for Mr. Hettinger with no return call. Mr. Hettinger also failed to respond to the OPC’s NOIC.

In a third matter, Mr. Hettinger was hired to represent a client in a divorce. A month after Mr. Hettinger was hired, the client was unable to contact or communicate with him. The client was forced to hire another attorney. Mr. Hettinger also failed to respond to the OPC’s NOIC.
Further, the aggravating factors substantially outweighed the mitigating factors in this case which included Mr. Hettinger failing to participate in the disciplinary proceedings before the district court.

PUBLIC REPRIMANDOn January 24, 2008, the Honorable Judge Randall N. Skanchy, Third Judicial District Court, entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of Discipline: Public Reprimand against Christopher S. Hall for violation of Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) (Communication), 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:
In a divorce proceeding, the court ordered Mr. Hall to prepare and file an order after a show cause hearing. Mr. Hall failed to prepare and file the order with the court. Mr. Hall failed to promptly reply to requests for information from his client. On it’s own motion, the court issued an order to show cause, which Mr. Hall failed to appear. The court dismissed the case. Mr. Hall failed to inform his client of the dismissal. After the client found out the case was dismissed, the client went to Mr. Hall’s office to request the client file. Mr. Hall told the client to come back at a later date. Mr. Hall also failed to respond to the Office of Professional Conduct’s Notice of Informal Complaint.

ADMONITION
On January 21, 2008, 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 1.2(a) (Scope of Representation), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) (Communication), 3.2 (Expediting Litigation), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
In a DUI case, the attorney failed to request a hearing with the Drivers License Division within the required time in order to protect the client’s commercial license. The attorney led the client to believe that a hearing had been requested. The client’s license was suspended for one year. The attorney ultimately refunded the client’s fee.

INTERIM SUSPENSION
On March 5, 2008, the Honorable Sandra Peuler, Third Judicial District Court, entered an Order of Interim Suspension Pursuant to Rule 14-519 of the Rules of Lawyer Discipline and Disability, suspending Cheri K. Gochberg from the practice of law pending final disposition of the Complaint filed against her.

In summary:
On November 2, 2007, Ms. Gochberg pled guilty to and was convicted of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol/Drugs (with priors) – 3rd Degree Felony, Utah Code Annotated § 41-6a-502 (1953, as amended). The interim suspension is based upon this felony conviction.

SUSPENSION AND PROBATION
On February 6, 2008, the Honorable John Paul Kennedy, Third Judicial District Court, entered an Order of Discipline: Suspension and Probation placing Angela Stander on suspension for a period of two years with a one year probation period to follow, effective March 7, 2008, for violation of Rules 3.3(a) (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 3.4(a) (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel), 8.4(c) (Misconduct), 8.4(d) (Misconduct), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
Ms. Stander falsified a reply memorandum and a declaration due to the court by using the court’s night drop box and date-stamping the first pages of the documents. She then edited the documents and filed them at a later date, which led the opposing party and counsel to believe that the documents were filed on the earlier date. The court discovered the back dated documents. After Ms. Stander’s employer conducted an internal investigation and determined that the documents were edited after the date stamped date, Ms. Stander misrepresented to her employer that she had filed the documents on the date of the date stamp.

DISBARMENT
On March 13, 2008, the Honorable James L. Shumate, Fifth Judicial District Court, entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of Discipline: Disbarment disbarring Anthony D. Woolf, effective March 13, 2008, from the practice of law in the State of Utah for violation of Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) (Communication), 1.5(b) (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. Woolf was hired to pursue a malpractice action against a dentist. Mr. Woolf filed his notice of appearance and also sent interrogatories on behalf of his client. Thereafter, Mr. Woolf did not file anything else on behalf of his client and the case was dismissed. Mr. Woolf did not inform his client of the dismissal, advise the client to seek new counsel, and did not return unearned fees to his client. Mr. Woolf failed to respond to the Office of Professional Conduct’s Notice of Informal Complaint. Additionally, Mr. Woolf abandoned his law practice as a whole, which included abandoning numerous public defender cases, which caused serious harm to the administration of justice.

ADMONITION
On March 17, 2008, 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 1.4(a) (Communication), 1.15(c) (Safekeeping Property), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
The attorney was retained to represent the client in a divorce action. The attorney’s fee agreement was at the least misleading. The attorney failed to place part of the retainer in the attorney’s trust account and failed to account for the retainer. For a three-month period the attorney failed to return the client’s telephone calls. At the end of the representation, the attorney failed to promptly return the unearned portion of the retainer.

PROBATION
On March 14, 2008, the Honorable Roger S. Dutson, Second Judicial District Court, entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order placing Stuwert B. Johnson on probation for a period of one year, effective, March 14, 2008, for violation of Rules 1.15(a), (b), and (c) (Safekeeping Property), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In summary:
Mr. Johnson failed to keep client property separate from his own. In this respect, Mr. Johnson failed to maintain an attorney trust account. By failing to have a trust account, Mr. Johnson failed to safeguard his client’s property. Additionally, Mr. Johnson failed to promptly deliver funds to a third party as well as his client and failed to hold disputed funds in a trust account until the dispute was resolved.

SUSPENSION
On March 12, 2008, the Honorable Wallace A. Lee, Sixth Judicial District Court, entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of Discipline: Suspension suspending Richard L. Musick for a period of one year, effective March 12, 2008.

In summary:
On February 14, 2007, the Court entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order of Discipline placing Mr. Musick on a one-year probation with conditions in lieu of suspension. Mr. Musick failed to meet the conditions of his probation and respond to requests for information from the Office of Professional Conduct.