ADMONITION
On June 15, 2009, 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) and 8.4(a) (Misconduct).
In summary:
An attorney was hired to represent a client in a personal injury case. For approximately eight months the attorney rarely communicated with the client. The client contacted the attorney’s office and spoke with a staff member on numerous occasions attempting to find out about the case. When the client asked for status updates, the attorney failed to comply.
ADMONITION
On June 15, 2009, 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).
In summary:
An attorney represented a client in a paternity action. The attorney, on behalf of the client, filed a petition for common law marriage. The attorney failed to notify the court in the common law marriage action of the pendency of the paternity action. Additionally, the attorney failed to notify the petitioner in the paternity action of the common law marriage action.
ADMONITION
On May 25, 2009, 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(d) (Safekeeping Property), 1.15(e) (Safekeeping Property), 5.3(a) (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct).
In summary:
The attorney and partners in the firm acknowledged that Workers Compensation Fund had a lien on settlement proceeds in regards to a case the firm was handling. The case settled and the funds were distributed to the client without paying the Workers Compensation Fund lien.
The attorney delegated to a subordinate the assignment of carrying out some of the firm’s responsibilities regarding the Workers Compensation Fund claim. No prior notification of settlement was made to the Workers Compensation Fund prior to disbursement. There was a
potential dispute regarding the Workers Compensation Fund Claim that the attorney had researched and consulted on with the senior partner. The attorney did not place the settlement funds in safe-keeping until the Workers Compensation Fund claim dispute was resolved.
ADMONITION
On May 25, 2009, 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), 1.4(b) (Communication), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct).
In summary:
The attorney accepted representation of a client and entered an appearance on the client’s behalf, creating an attorney-client relationship. At the time the attorney entered an appearance, the attorney knew that the matter could not be completed if a previously scheduled hearing was not continued. When the attorney’s motion for a continuance was not granted, the attorney did not find another attorney to attend the hearing on behalf of the client and the attorney failed to prepare the client to appear pro se at the hearing. Furthermore, the attorney did not keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the case before and after the hearing;
failed to attend a second hearing on behalf of the client or withdraw from representation of the client prior to the hearing.
ADMONITION
On June 8, 2009, the Vice 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
5.1(a) (Responsibilities of Partners, Managers, and Supervisory Lawyers), 5.1(c) (Responsibilities of Partners, Managers, and Supervisory Lawyers), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct).
In summary:
An attorney practiced in a law firm with a partner. The attorney did not exercise sufficient oversight of the partner’s use of the firm’s trust account. The attorney did not question the amount of the fee the firm received in comparison to the cash payment received by the client. Furthermore, the attorney did not investigate the matter further when he received a letter from counsel for the client disputing the amount of the fee. Instead, the attorney simply relied on the representation of events from the partner.
ADMONITION
On June 15, 2009, 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
Admissions and Disciplinary Matters) and 8.4(a) (Misconduct).
In summary:
An attorney knowingly failed to respond to the OPC’s first request for information after the OPC received a notice of insufficient funds on the attorney’s trust account. The attorney’s various responses and submissions to the OPC, both written and in testimony, contained several inconsistencies.
ADMONITION
On June 15, 2009, 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), 1.5(a) (Fees), 1.15(a) (Safekeeping Property), 1.15(c) (Safekeeping Property), 3.2 (Expediting Litigation), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct).
In summary:
An attorney was hired to file a Bankruptcy Petition. The attorney was paid advance money to file the Bankruptcy papers. Of the advanced money, part was designated for attorney fees and part was designated to pay the filing fee, according to the attorney’s fee agreement. The attorney deposited all the money into the operating account. After receiving payment from the clients, the attorney failed to return calls from the clients and failed to keep them updated regarding their case. The attorney failed to file the Petition for Bankruptcy or any other papers on behalf of the clients. The attorney failed to refund the unearned fees; and the attorney failed to refund the payment for the filing fee that was not incurred; and the attorney failed to turn the file over to the clients or their new attorney.
ADMONITION
On June 15, 2009, 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 4.2(a) (Communications with Persons Represented by Counsel) and 8.4(a) (Misconduct).
In summary:
An attorney was notified that an individual was represented by counsel. The attorney wrote directly to the individual after receiving the notice from the individual’s attorney.
INTERIM SUSPENSION
On June 8, 2009, the Honorable Joseph C. Fratto, Third Judicial District Court, entered an Order of Interim Suspension Pursuant to Rule 14-519 of the Rules of Lawyer Discipline and Disability, suspending Donald J. Purser from the practice of law pending final disposition of the Complaint filed against him.
In summary:
On May 15, 2008, Mr. Purser was found guilty of one count of Sale of Unregistered Security – 3rd Degree Felony, see Utah Code Ann. §61-1-7 (2006); id. §61-1-21. On October 15, 2008, Mr. Purser was found guilty of one count of Securities Fraud – 2nd Degree Felony, see id. §61-1-1; id. §61-1-21. The interim suspension is based upon the felony convictions.
INTERIM SUSPENSION
On June 8, 2009, the Honorable Robert Faust, Third Judicial District Court, entered an Order of Interim Suspension Pursuant to Rule 14-518 of the Rules of Lawyer Discipline and Disability,
suspending Matthew T. Graff from the practice of law pending final disposition of the Complaint filed against him.
In summary:
An attorney discipline complaint was filed against Mr. Graff. Subsequent to the filing of the discipline complaint felony criminal charges were filed against Mr. Graff. The attorney discipline complaint allegations are independent of the criminal charges. However, Mr. Graff’s acknowledged that his practice of law pending resolution of the attorney discipline action and the pending criminal charges poses a substantial threat of irreparable harm to the public.
SUSPENSION
On July 2, 2009, the Honorable Sandra N. Pueler, Third District Court entered an Order of Discipline: Suspension for six months all but 30 days stayed with probation imposed against Richard Nemelka for violation of Rules 1.7 (Conflict of Interest: Current Clients), 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
Mr. Nemelka signed his clients’ names, notarized the signatures, and filed the documents with the court allowing the court to believe that his clients had actually signed the papers. Mr. Nemelka filed motions to intervene in two of the underlying cases so that he could pursue collection of his fees while still representing the clients. The following were aggravating factors: prior record of discipline; pattern of misconduct; multiple offenses; and substantial experience in
the practice of law. The following mitigating factors: remorse; absence of a dishonest and selfish motive; good character and reputation.
PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On June 15, 2009, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court entered an Order of Discipline: Public Reprimand against Roy D. Cole for violation of Rules 1.4(a) (Communication), 1.4(b) (Communication), 1.5(a) (Fees), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
In summary:
Mr. Cole worked with a nonlawyer assisting clients with immigration cases. Mr. Cole clearly knew that the nonlawyer was not a licensed Utah attorney. Mr. Cole knew he would be supervising the nonlawyer, but failed to adequately explain and communicate that to his clients.
Mr. Cole failed to keep his clients adequately informed of what was going on with the case. Mr. Cole failed to provide copies of any documentation to the clients. Mr. Cole failed to explain the scope of the representation to the clients and, based on the various accounts given to the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary authority could not discern what was the actual scope of representation. Mr. Cole failed to provide legal services for the fee he charged his clients. Mr.
Cole failed to present any evidence to show that the fee collected was reasonable given the work performed.