ARTHUR J. FROST Bar No ; File No By Supreme Court Judgment and Order

Transcription

1 REINSTATED ATTORNEYS DAVID G. DAVIES Bar No ; File No dated Feb. 13, 2002, David G. Davies, 5110 North 40th Street, Suite 236, Phoenix, AZ 85018, was reinstated pursuant to Rule 71(c) after completing his suspension ordered on Dec. 12, DONALD J. GALBASINI Bar No ; File No dated Jan. 16, 2002, Donald J. Galbasini, 1555 East University, Mesa, AZ 85203, was reinstated pursuant to Rule 71(c) after completing his suspension ordered on Nov. 8, MICHAEL L. RHEES Bar No ; File No dated Mar. 5, 2002, Michael L. Rhees, 136 East Desert Park Lane, Phoenix, AZ 85020, was reinstated pursuant to Rule 71(c) after completing his suspension ordered on Nov. 7, ALEXANDER L. SIERRA Bar No ; File Nos , and dated Jan. 24, 2002, Alexander L. Sierra, One South Church, Suite 1600, Tucson, AZ 85702, was reinstated pursuant to Rule 71(c) after completing his suspension ordered on Nov. 5, ERIC S. SPARKS Bar No ; File No dated Feb. 8, 2002, Eric S. Sparks, 110 South Church, Suite 2270, Tucson, AZ 85701, was reinstated pursuant to Rule 71(c) after completing his suspension ordered on Dec. 19, SANCTIONED ATTORNEYS DAVID B. APKER Bar No ; File No dated Oct. 18, 2001, David B. Apker, 2111 East Highland, Suite 230, Phoenix, AZ 85064, was suspended for six months and one day for conduct in violation of his duties and obligations as a lawyer. Mr. Apker also was ordered to pay restitution to TSG Title Agency, Inc. (TSG) the sum of $4,646 and to reimburse the Client Protection Fund for any claims paid, not to exceed the maximum permissible payment of $100,000. Mr. Apker was ordered to pay costs and expenses in the amount of $1, incurred by the State Bar, together with interest at the legal rate from the date of the judgment. Mr. Apker was hired by a client to conduct trustees sales to foreclose against parcels of realty. Mr. Apker ordered and obtained two trustee sale guarantee reports from TSG, for which TSG billed Mr. Apker $4,646. The client paid Mr. Apker for those reports, but Mr. Apker failed to promptly notify or pay TSG and failed to have internal controls to safeguard funds held in trust, and committed theft by using that money to pay himself and other creditors. There were eight aggravating factors Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Section 9.22: (a) prior disciplinary offenses, (b) selfish motive, (e) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceedings by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, (g) refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct, (h) vulnerability of the victim, (i) substantial experience in the practice of law, (j) indifference to making restitution and (k) illegal conduct. There was one mitigating factor found pursuant to Section 9.32 of the ABA Standards: (m) remoteness of prior offense. Mr. Apker s conduct violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., particularly ER 1.15(b), ER 8.4(b) and (d), and Rule 43(d), ARIZ.R.S.CT. ARTHUR J. FROST Bar No ; File No dated Oct. 18, 2001, Arthur J. Frost, 7549 West Heatherbrae, Phoenix, AZ 85033, was suspended for 30 days by consent in violation of his duties and obligations as a lawyer. Mr. Frost also was placed on probation for two years. The terms of the probation include a LOMAP audit and an order to complete the Trust Account Ethics Enhancement Program. Mr. Frost also was ordered to pay costs and expenses in the amount of $1, incurred by the State Bar, together of the judgment. The State Bar received a notice from the bank advising that Mr. Frost had overdrawn his trust account resulting in a negative balance of $ plus fees. Mr. Frost commingled client funds with his own funds, failed to establish adequate internal controls to safeguard client funds, failed to properly record all transactions promptly and com- pletely, and failed to maintain records on a current basis. Based on Mr. Frost s admissions, the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, and Arizona case law, the Commission found one violation each of ER 1.15 and the Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court, Rules 43 and 44. GREGG H. GRIFFITH Bar No ; File Nos , , and dated June 18, 2001, Gregg H. Griffith, North Hayden Rd., Scottsdale, AZ, was disbarred. Mr. Griffith was ordered to pay restitution to three clients in the total amount of $5,750. Mr. Griffith also was ordered to pay costs and expenses incurred by the State Bar. In the first matter, Mr. Griffith was retained to represent a client in a criminal case. The matter was set for trial and the client asked if he needed to be present. Mr. Griffith told the client that he would seek to have the hearing rescheduled, but failed to do so and failed to tell the client that he had not done so. On the day of the hearing, Mr. Griffith appeared and told the court that he did not know why his client was not present and that he was unsure of his client s whereabouts. This caused the client to be arrested and extradited to Arizona, where he spent approximately 30 days in jail. In the second matter, Mr. Griffith was retained to represent a client in a post-conviction relief matter. Respondent filed an appearance and a Rule 32 petition. However, Mr. Griffith failed to communicate with the client or apprise him of the issues within the petition. The client was even unaware that Mr. Griffith had filed the petition. Ultimately the petition was dismissed and Mr. Griffith did not communicate this to his client; nor did Mr. Griffith advise the client of his right to petition for review or to file a motion for reconsideration. Mr. Griffith failed to respond to the State Bar s inquiry into the charge. In the third matter, Mr. Griffith was retained to represent a client in a juvenile matter regarding a probation violation. The judge noted that there was no motion to withdraw in the file and that Mr. Griffith failed to appear at a scheduled hearing without justification. The court reset the hearing but Mr. Griffith again failed to appear. In addition, Mr. Griffith failed to respond to inquiries made in the State Bar s investigation of this matter. In the fourth matter, Mr. Griffith was retained to represent a client in a federal 32 ARIZONA ATTORNEY JULY/AUGUST 2002

2 habeas corpus action. Mr. Griffith failed to communicate with his client despite repeated attempts by the client and other family members to communicate with Mr. Griffith. The client then requested the return of his file and transcripts, but Mr. Griffith failed to return the files and transcripts. Again Mr. Griffith failed to cooperate with the State Bar in its investigation of this matter. There were six aggravating factors found offenses, (b) dishonest or selfish motive, (c) pattern of misconduct, (d) multiple offenses, (e) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency and (h) vulnerability of clients. There were no mitigating factors found pursuant to Section 9.32 of the ABA Standards. Mr. Griffith s conduct violated Rule 42, ER 1.4, ER 1.5, ER 1.16, ER 3.2, ER 3.3(a)(1), ER 3.4(c), ER 8.1(a) and (b) and ER 8.4(c) and (d) and Rule 51(e), (h), (i) and (k), ARIZ.R.S.CT. GREGG H. GRIFFITH Bar No ; File Nos , and dated Oct. 18, 2001, Gregg H. Griffith, North Hayden Rd, Scottsdale, AZ, was disbarred. Mr. Griffith was ordered to reimburse the Client Protection Fund for any claims paid out by the Fund not to exceed the maximum permissible payment of $100,000. Mr. Griffith was ordered to pay costs and expenses in the amount of $1, incurred by the State Bar, together of the judgment. In the first matter, Mr. Griffith was retained to represent a client in a criminal matter. Over the three-year period that Mr. Griffith represented the client, he failed to respond to his client s requests for documents and information concerning the status of the case. In addition, while on summary suspension, Mr. Griffith filed a motion to continue the trial date. Prior to the court s ruling denying the continuance, Mr. Griffith left town on vacation. He therefore failed to appear for the scheduled trial. Mr. Griffith failed to take actions consistent with the goals of the client and failed to properly expedite the litigation. Mr. Griffith was subsequently ordered to appear and show cause and to provide documentation from a medical authority supporting his numerous JULY/AUGUST 2002 ARIZONA ATTORNEY 33

3 requests for continuances. Thereafter, Mr. Griffith was found in contempt and sanctioned $364. In second matter, Mr. Griffith was retained to represent a client in three separate criminal matters. Again Mr. Griffith failed to provide documents and failed to communicate with the client regarding the status of the case and the strategy employed in representation of the case. Mr. Griffith also failed to appear at various court dates. In addition, Mr. Griffith failed to respond to the State Bar s requests for information in its investigation of the matter. In the third matter, Mr. Griffith was retained to represent a client in six felony matters. Thereafter Mr. Griffith failed to communicate the status of the case, failed to advise the client of a scheduled hearing, failed to appear for the scheduled conferences with the client and failed to adequately advise his client about testifying. In addition, Mr. Griffith failed to respond to the State Bar s requests for information in its investigation of the matter. There were eight aggravating factors Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Section 9.22: (a) prior disciplinary offenses, (b) dishonest or selfish motive, (c) pattern of misconduct, (d) multiple offenses, (e) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, (g) refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct, (h) vulnerability of clients and (i) substantial experience in the practice of law. There were no mitigating factors found pursuant to Section 9.32 of the ABA Standards. Mr. Griffith s conduct violated Rule 42, ER 1.4, ER 3.2, ER 3.4(c), ER 5.5, ER 8.1(b), ER 8.4(c) and (d) and Rule 51(e), (h), (i) and (k), ARIZ.R.S.CT. LEE ALLEN JOHNSON Bar No ; File Nos and dated Jan. 11, 2002, Lee Allen Johnson, 401 West Baseline, Suite 206, Tempe, AZ 85283, was censured for conduct in violation of his duties and obligations as a lawyer. Mr. Johnson also was placed on probation for CAUTION: Nearly 16,000 attorneys are eligible to practice law in Arizona. Many attorneys share the same names. All reports should be read carefully for names, addresses and Bar numbers. two years including taking the State Bar s Trust Account Ethics Enhancement Program and participating in MAP and LOMAP. Mr. Johnson was ordered to pay costs and expenses incurred by the State Bar in the amount of $739.80, together with interest at the legal rate, in this matter. In Count One, a check in the amount of $200 was paid on Mr. Johnson s IOLTA trust account when the balance was only $ The bank paid the check and charged Mr. Johnson a $25.00 overdraft fee. In response to an insufficient funds notice, the State Bar requested Mr. Johnson to provide relevant trust account documents. Mr. Johnson initially failed to respond and failed to produce the documents at a deposition. Ultimately Mr. Johnson responded and provided the necessary documentation to determine the cause of the insufficient fund notice, which turned out to be a case of mistakenly having deposited the funds into the operating account rather than the trust account. In Count Two, Mr. Johnson was retained on August 30, 1999 in three separate collection matters, one of which involved a mechanic s lien. The client had requested Mr. Johnson to file suit pursuant to a specific deadline. The client thereafter had difficulty in communicating with Mr. Johnson. In addition, Mr. Johnson did not file suit within the time frame requested by the client and then failed to respond to any case status inquiries. The client requested a refund of the retainer and although Mr. Johnson agreed to the request, he did not refund the retainer until the client filed a bar charge. Lawyer Sanctions, Section 9.22: (e) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency and (i) substantial experience in the practice of law. There were four mitigating factors found pursuant to Section 9.32 of the ABA Standards: (a) absence of a prior disciplinary record, (b) absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, (c) personal or emotional problems and (l) remorse. Mr. Johnson s conduct violated Rule 42, ER 1.4, ER 1.15 and ER 8.1(b) and Rules 43, 44 and 51(h) and (i), ARIZ.R.S.CT. JOHN J. LEIBER Bar No ; File No dated July 22, 2001, John J. Leiber, 453 South Main, Tucson, AZ 85701, was censured for conduct in violation of his duties and obligations as a lawyer pursuant to a Tender of Admissions and Agreement for Discipline by Consent submitted by Mr. Leiber and the Bar to the Disciplinary Commission. Mr. Leiber also was placed on probation for one year with LOMAP and ordered to complete the Trust Account Ethics Enhancement Program within one year of the order. Mr. Leiber also was ordered to pay costs and expenses in the amount of $1, incurred by the State Bar, together with interest at the legal rate from the date of the judgment. In Count One, Mr. Leiber failed to comply with State Bar trust account guidelines, which caused a check issued against his trust account in the amount of $8,000 to be returned for insufficient funds because Mr. Leiber s trust account only had a balance of $5, The shortage in Mr. Leiber s trust account occurred only because a client, a longtime friend and lawyer, had agreed to deposit $8,000 to be used in resolving a matter on the client s behalf in Mr. Leiber s trust account by way of a deposit to a California branch of Mr. Lieber s bank but only deposited $5,000. In Count Two, Mr. Leiber voluntarily reported to the State Bar that over a period of years he commingled personal funds with client funds in his trust account in violation of State Bar trust account guidelines. Mr. Leiber placed earned upon receipt fees or other earned fees collected for services rendered, totaling $10,500, and of other personal funds totaling $97, into his trust account. There was no evidence that Mr. Leiber commingled such funds for any fraudulent or otherwise improper purpose. In approving the agreed-upon sanction, the Commission found that there was no actual harm, dishonesty or self dealing on the part of Mr. Lieber. Lawyer Sanctions, Section 9.22: (c) pattern of misconduct and (i) substantial experience in the practice of law. There were six mitigating factors found pursuant to Section 9.32 of the ABA Standards: (a) absence of a prior disciplinary record, (b) absence of selfish or dishonest motive, (c) personal or emotional problems, (e) full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceeding, (g) character or reputation and (l) remorse. The Commission also found that but for the mitigation, a suspension may have been appropriate. Mr. Leiber s conduct violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., particularly ER 1.15(a) and Rules 43 and 44, ARIZ.R.S.CT. 34 ARIZONA ATTORNEY JULY/AUGUST 2002

4 RUBEN J. MARCHOSKY Bar No ; File Nos , , , , , and dated Jan. 14, 2001, Ruben J. Marchosky, 3509 East Shea Blvd., Suite 117, P.O. Box 30280, Phoenix, AZ 85046, was disbarred for conduct in violation of his duties and obligations as a lawyer. Mr. Marchosky was ordered to reimburse the Client Protection Fund for any claims paid out not to exceed the maximum permissible payment of $100,000. Mr. Marchosky also was ordered to pay costs and expenses incurred by the State Bar in the amount of $1,928.18, together with interest at the legal rate, in this matter. Mr. Marchosky represented clients in disability cases who were entitled to monthly checks from the Worker s Compensation Fund. The checks were sent to Mr. Marchosky who was to take his portion and send the remainder to his clients, but clients stopped receiving checks from Respondent in Mr. Marchosky failed to communicate with his clients, failed to safeguard client property and failed to respond to the State Bar. There were eight aggravating factors Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Section 9.22: (a) prior disciplinary offenses, (b) dishonest or selfish motive, (c) pattern of misconduct, (d) multiple offenses, (e) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, (h) vulnerability of clients, (i) substantial experience in the practice of law and (j) indifference to making restitution. There were no mitigating factors found pursuant to Section 9.32 of the ABA Standards. Mr. Marchosky s conduct violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., particularly ER 1.3, ER 1.4, ER 1.15, ER 1.16(d), ER 8.1 and ER 8.4 and Rule 51(h) and (i), ARIZ.R.S.CT. SIGNA R. OLIVER Bar No ; File Nos , , and dated Aug. 31, 2001, Signa R. Oliver, 4949 West Greeg Road, West Bloomfield, MI 48324, was disbarred for conduct in violation of her duties and obligations as a lawyer. Ms. Oliver also was ordered to pay restitution to two clients in the total amount of $6,859 plus interest and to reimburse the Client Protection Fund for any claims paid by the Fund. Ms. Oliver was ordered to pay costs and expenses in the amount of $1, incurred by the State Bar, together with JULY/AUGUST 2002 ARIZONA ATTORNEY 35

5 interest at the legal rate from the date of the judgment. In Count One, Ms. Oliver settled a personal injury case on behalf of three minors and failed to provide settlement disbursement sheets to the clients. Ms. Oliver failed to promptly notify a lien holder of the settlement and her receipt of funds and to promptly pay the lien holder. Ms. Oliver misrepresented that she would honor the third-party lien and engaged in dishonesty, fraud and deceit by not delivering those funds. All of this conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice. In addition, Ms. Oliver failed to promptly respond to the State Bar s investigation of this matter. In Count Two, Ms. Oliver received a $300 retainer in a dispute over a gazebo purchase. Ms. Oliver failed to abide by the client s decisions concerning the objective of representation, failed to communicate with the client and failed to diligently represent her client and file suit. Ms. Oliver then abandoned the client and did not return the client s file or refund her fee. In addition, all of this conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice. Ms. Oliver also failed to promptly respond to the State Bar s investigation of this matter. In Count Three, Ms. Oliver mismanaged her trust account and commingled personal funds for a period of five years and failed to properly supervise employees charged with trust account duties in connection to some of the violations. The State Bar was notified that five checks were returned for insufficient funds. In addition, there were a number of serious irregularities, including 25 checks paid to cash. Ms. Oliver could not provide adequate documentation regarding these checks. Ms. Oliver also wrote a number of personal checks on her trust account and had her military pay directly deposited into her trust account. Although Ms. Oliver responded to the charges, she was unable to submit complete records as requested. There were seven aggravating factors Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Section 9.22: (b) selfish motive, (c) pattern of misconduct, (d) multiple offenses, (e) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, (g) refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct, (h) vulnerability of victim and (j) indifference to making restitution. There was one mitigating factor found pursuant to Section 9.32 of the ABA Standards: (a) absence of prior disciplinary record. Ms. Oliver s conduct violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., especially ER 1.2, ER 1.3, ER 1.4, ER 1.5, ER 1.15, ER 1.16(d), ER 8.1, ER 8.4 and Rules 43, 44 and 51(h) and (i), ARIZ.R.S.CT. MICHAEL L. RHEES Bar No ; File No dated Nov. 7, 2001, Michael L. Rhees, 4000 North Central, Suite 1750, Phoenix, AZ 85012, was suspended for four months by consent for conduct in violation of his duties and obligations as a lawyer. Mr. Rhees also was placed on probation for two years, effective upon reinstatement, including participation in MAP. Mr. Rhees was ordered to reimburse the Client Protection Fund for any and all claims paid. Mr. Rhees was ordered to pay costs and expenses in the amount of $2, incurred by the State Bar, together of judgment. Mr. Rhees was summarily suspended on June 18, 1998, for failing to submit his MCLE affidavit and payment of late fees pursuant to Rule 45. During his suspension, Mr. Rhees remained attorney of record for 18 clients for whom he filed three motions/pleadings, attended one hearing and remained active in cases for other clients of the firm. In addition, Mr. Rhees made misrepresentations to the Court concerning the filing of his MCLE affidavit and to his clients and others concerning his ability to practice law. Lawyer Sanctions, Section 9.22: (d) multiple offenses and (i) substantial experience in the practice of law. There were four mitigating factors found pursuant to Section 9.32 of the ABA Standards: (a) absence of a prior disciplinary record, (e) full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings, (h) mental disability and (l) remorse. Mr. Rhees conduct violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., particularly ER 3.3(a)(1), ER 3.4(c), ER 5.5 and ER 8.4(c) and Rule 51(e) and (k), ARIZ.R.S.CT. ALEXANDER L. SIERRA Bar No ; File Nos , and dated Nov. 5, 2001, Alexander L. Sierra, One South Church, Suite 1600, Tucson, AZ 85702, was suspended for 30 days in violation of his duties and obligations as a lawyer. Mr. Sierra also was placed on probation, upon reinstatement, for two years with MAP. Mr. Sierra also was ordered to pay costs and expenses incurred by the State Bar. In Count One, Mr. Sierra represented a client in a dental malpractice action. The case settled for $30,000 and the client endorsed the settlement check on June 7, The check was then deposited on June 10, 1999, but to Mr. Sierra s general operating account and not his IOLTA trust account. Mr. Sierra then failed to make the client s portion available to the client. On July 2, 1999, Mr. Sierra told the client that the check was in the mail. When the check failed to arrive, the client arranged to meet with Mr. Sierra, who then failed to show up for the meeting. Mr. Sierra had already been spending the money on other clients and a lien holder in another case and by July 9, there was only $5,000 left. On July 12, after the client threatened to report him to the State Bar, Mr. Sierra gave the client a $23,000 check that bounced. Mr. Sierra then paid the client $10,000 on July 15, 1999, using money from yet another client to do so, and the remaining $13,000 was paid on July 28, In Count Two, Mr. Sierra represented a family (father and son) against the State of Arizona. The family owed a doctor for chiropractic treatment. The case settled for $8,841, with the doctor s fees being $3,000 and the client s share being $2, The settlement check was again deposited into Mr. Sierra s operating account prior to June 1. On June 1, there was sufficient money to pay both the clients and the doctor, but Mr. Sierra instead wired the majority of the money to someone else on June 2, 1999, leaving an insufficient amount to pay either the doctor or the clients. The doctor and the clients were finally paid from the money received for the client from Count One. In Count Three, Mr. Sierra represented a client in a legal malpractice action that had been filed by the client before Mr. Sierra was retained. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss that Mr. Sierra failed to respond to and the case was dismissed. Mr. Sierra admitted to the client that he had erred in not responding to the motion and told the client to go to another attorney to see if they could get the dismissal set aside. The client, after having spoken with another attorney, returned and said that the client wanted to work it out with Mr. Sierra. After the client threatened to go to the State Bar, Mr. Sierra signed an agreement to pay the client $175,000. Mr. Sierra admitted that he negotiated the agreement limiting Mr. Sierra s liability without first telling the client in writing to get other counsel. There were three aggravating factors Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Section 9.22: (b) selfish or dishonest motive, (d) multiple 36 ARIZONA ATTORNEY JULY/AUGUST 2002

6 offenses and (i) substantial experience in the practice of law. There were seven mitigating factors found pursuant to Section 9.32 of the ABA Standards: (a) absence of a prior disciplinary record, (c) personal or emotional problems, (d) timely good faith effort to rectify consequences of misconduct, (e) full and free disclosure to disciplinary board cooperative attitude toward proceeding, (g) character or reputation, (h) mental disability and (l) remorse. In the summer of 1999, Mr. Sierra was dealing with the death of his father and suffering from severe depression. Mr. Sierra s conduct violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., particularly ER 1.4, ER 1.8(h), ER 1.15, ER 8.1(b), ER 8.4(a) and (d) and Rules 43 and 44, ARIZ.R.S.CT. CHERYL L. SIVIC Bar No ; File No dated Aug. 30, 2001, Cheryl L. Sivic, 2101 East Broadway, Suite 16, Tempe, AZ 85282, was suspended for one year effective from the date of the judgment for conduct in violation of her duties and obligations as a lawyer. Ms. Sivic also was ordered to pay restitution to one client in the amount of $920 and to reimburse the Client Protection Fund for any claims paid by the Fund. Ms. Sivic was ordered to pay costs and expenses in the amount of $1, incurred by the State Bar, together with interest at the legal rate from the date of the judgment. Ms. Sivic was summarily suspended on April 28, 2000, for nonpayment of dues and noncompliance with mandatory continuing legal education. Ms. Sivic also was summarily suspended on September 15, 2000, for failure to timely answer after being served with a formal Complaint in disciplinary proceedings. Ms. Sivic represented a client and received a retainer of $1,500. Thereafter, the client obtained a judgment in the South Mesa/Gilbert Justice Court and Ms. Sivic was ordered to pay the client $1,020 plus interest. To date, Ms. Sivic has only paid $100 of that judgment. There were five aggravating factors found offenses, (b) selfish motive, (e) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, (i) substantial experience in the practice of law and (j) indifference to making restitution. There were no mitigating factors found pursuant to Section 9.32 of the ABA Standards. Ms. Sivic s conduct violated Rule 51(e) and (k), ARIZ.R.S.CT. JULY/AUGUST 2002 ARIZONA ATTORNEY 37

7 DENNIS P. TURNAGE Bar No ; File Nos , , , , , , , and dated Aug. 31, 2001, Dennis P. Turnage, 501 East Moreland, Phoenix, AZ 85004, was suspended for four years by consent, effective Sept. 29, 2001, for conduct in violation of his duties and obligations as a lawyer. Mr. Turnage also was ordered on probation for two years and ordered to attend the Trust Account Ethics Enhancement Program and to participate in LOMAP and MAP. Mr. Turnage was ordered to pay restitution to one client in the amount of $350 and to compensate the Client Protection Fund for any claims paid out by the Fund. Mr. Turnage was ordered to pay costs and expenses in the amount of $2, incurred by the State Bar, together with interest at the legal rate from the date of the judgment. Mr. Turnage failed to provide diligent representation to clients in matters involving personal injury, a Social Security dispute, an adoption, a child support/visitation case and severing of a father s parental rights. Mr. Turnage failed to pay lien holders and converted client funds on four occasions, in Counts One, Two, Three and Seven. In Count Four, the underlying allegations could not be proved; however, Mr. Turnage failed to respond to State Bar inquiries. In Count Five, Mr. Turnage failed to adequately communicate with his client and failed to respond to the client s request for a refund of the retainer fee in a matter that had been dismissed. In Count Six, Mr. Turnage failed to comply with the court order requiring him to provide certain information to the court. Due to the lack of response from Mr. Turnage, the case was eventually dismissed. There were five aggravating factors found offenses, (c) pattern of misconduct, (d) multiple offenses, (e) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceedings by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency and (i) substantial experience in the practice of law. There were four mitigating factors found pursuant to Section 9.32 of the ABA Standards: (a) absence of a prior disciplinary record, (c) personal or emotional problems, (d) timely good faith effort to make restitution or to rectify consequences of misconduct in all but one count, (e) full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings after formal proceedings and (l) remorse. Mr. Turnage s conduct violated Rule 42, ER 1.4, ER 1.5, ER 1.5(c), ER 1.15, ER 1.16(d), ER 3.4(c), ER 8.1 and ER 8.4 and Rules 43, 44 and 51(e), (h), (i) and (k), ARIZ.R.S.CT. PETER T. VAN BAALEN Bar No ; File No dated Sept. 27, 2001, Peter T. Van Baalen, 111 West Monroe, Suite 1111, Phoenix, AZ 85003, was censured by consent in violation of his duties and obligations as a lawyer. Mr. Van Baalen also was placed on probation for one year, which includes participation in LOMAP. Mr. Van Baalen also was ordered to pay costs and expenses in the amount of $1, incurred by the State Bar, together of the judgment. In August 1999, Mr. Van Baalen received an insufficient funds notification related to two checks in the total amount of $ The dishonored checks resulted from a late deposit made by support staff. During the State Bar s investigation of the matter, Mr. Van Baalen voluntarily reported that in June 1999 he became aware of a deficit situation in his trust account. In order to protect the interests of his clients, Mr. Van Baalen transferred funds from his general account to his trust account, thereby commingling personal funds with those belonging to his clients. Mr. Van Baalen retained an independent auditor to perform an investigation into the cause of the deficit in the trust account. Mr. Van Baalen inadvertently failed to properly safeguard client property by allowing a deficit to occur in his trust account; he failed to consistently reconcile his trust account on a monthly basis; On occasion, he failed to record all transactions promptly and completely. On occasion, he failed to maintain accurate client ledgers or their equivalent. Mr. Van Baalen maintained some records but did not maintain all records required by the Rules of Professional Conduct. ETHICS OPINIONS Opinion No (March 2002) Unless an administrative rule or statute requires such contact, a lawyer should not send copies of documents to a represented opposing party without opposing counsel s consent, even if copies are sent contemporaneously to opposing counsel. [ER 4.2] Need an Opinion? Check out the State Bar Web site at for a listing of the ethics opinions issued between 1985 and If you are an Arizona attorney and have an ethics question, contact Lynda Shely, Director of Ethics, at (602) offense and (i) substantial experience in the practice of law. There were five mitigating factors found pursuant to Section 9.32 of the ABA Standards: (b) absence of selfish or dishonest motive, (d) timely good faith effort to make restitution or rectify consequence of misconduct, (e) full and free disclosure to disciplinary board and cooperative attitude toward proceeding, (l) remorse and (m) remoteness of prior offense. Mr. Van Baalen s conduct violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., particularly ER 1.15 and Rules 43 and 44, ARIZ.R.S.CT. GEORGE VICE, III Bar No ; File No , and dated Sept. 11, 2001, George Vice, III, 3915 East Camelback, #219, Phoenix, AZ 85018, was suspended for six months and a day, effective Oct. 11, 2001, for conduct in violation of his duties and obligations as a lawyer. Mr. Vice also was ordered to reimburse the Client Protection Fund for any claims paid by the Fund. Mr. Vice also was placed on probation with MAP upon his reinstatement. In Count One, Mr. Vice pled no contest to charges that he physically assaulted his wife. Upon his arrest, he had been released on his own recognizance. The Order of Release forbade him from having any contact with his wife. Mr. Vice was further prohibited from possessing any firearms. Thereafter, he pled no contest to charges arising out of a 38 ARIZONA ATTORNEY JULY/AUGUST 2002