LAWYER REGULATION JANUARY 2016 ARIZONA ATTORNEY 51.

Transcription

1 SANCTIONED ATTORNEYS CHRISTOPHER P. CORSO Bar No ; File Nos , , , PDJ No By Final Judgment and Order dated Oct. 5, 2015, the presiding disciplinary judge accepted an agreement for discipline by consent by which Christopher Corso, Scottsdale, was reprimanded and placed on probation for two years. Mr. Corso must participate in the State Bar s Law Office Management Assistance Program and participate in fee arbitration with clients in four different matters. He also was assessed the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceeding. In the first matter Mr. Corso, a managing partner of the law firm of Corso and Rhude, committed numerous trust account violations by commingling and converting client funds for an extended period. At the start of the representation of a husband and wife in a criminal matter, the wife paid an earned upon receipt fee, as well as an additional $5,000 to be set aside in the trust account to be used to post bond should the client be arrested. The court later required that she post a $2,500 bond. Mr. Corso did not timely return the remaining $2,500 to her upon conclusion of the representation, causing her to seek the State Bar s assistance. An audit of the firm s trust account revealed the numerous trust account violations noted above. In the same case, the firm failed to obtain a written conflict waiver until two months after it had allegedly obtained a verbal waiver from the husband and failed to obtain any written conflict waiver from the wife. After the prosecutor in the case raised a possible conflict of interest, and the clients interests were no longer aligned, the firm continued to bill the clients. In count two, Mr. Corso s firm failed to appear for two hearings because the firm failed to review the court docket upon accepting the representation and failed to notify the court that it deactivated two firm addresses previously provided to the court. After the second failure to appear, the court set a contempt hearing. Mr. Corso filed a motion blaming court staff for the firm s failure to appear and ultimately was admonished by the court and fined. In count three, Mr. Corso s firm was hired by a client s mother for a flat fee of $25,000 to provide criminal defense representation. The client s mother later asked the firm for an accounting to justify the fee. The firm provided the client s mother with an accounting that failed to distinguish between attorney and non-attorney work. The invoices later were edited to reflect the distinction between attorney and nonattorney work. The firm provided more than $25,000 worth of lawyer services. In count four, Mr. Corso s firm was hired by a client in a criminal matter. The client was assigned to several different firm attorneys dur- ing the representation. On the day of trial, a firm associate appeared three minutes before court started. During trial, to the client s surprise, the associate informed the court he would call no witnesses in the client s defense. The client was found guilty of disorderly conduct based on the undisputed assertion that the sheriff s office called the SWAT team to the scene the client caused. Aggravating factors: a pattern of misconduct and multiple offenses. Mitigating factor: full and free disclosure to the disciplinary board. Mr. Corso violated Rule 42, Ariz.R.S.Ct., specifically ERs 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.7, 1.15(a), 1.16(d), 5.1(a) and (b), 5.3(a), and 8.4(d). Mr. Corso also violated Rules 43(a), 43(b)(1)(A)-(C), 43(b)(2)(A) (D), 43(b)(5), and 43(d)(3). CYNTHIA FUTTER Calif. Bar No ; File No PDJ No By final judgment and order dated Oct. 1, 2015, the presiding JANUARY 2016 ARIZONA ATTORNEY 51

2 disciplinary judge accepted an agreement for discipline by consent by which Cynthia Futter, Santa Monica, Calif., was reprimanded. She also was assessed the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceeding in the amount of $1,200. In 2009, Ms. Futter provided a retainer agreement to a homeowners association ( HOA ) that managed a condominium project in Phoenix. Pursuant to the retainer agreement, Ms. Futter was to act as the HOA s general counsel pending retention of local counsel. Ms. Futter engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Arizona by (among other things): sending letters on behalf of the HOA in which she identified herself as general counsel to the HOA or in which she stated that she represented the HOA; sending letters in which she engaged in settlement negotiations on behalf of the HOA; and sending letters in which she attempted to collect unpaid assessments for the HOA. The one aggravating factor was substantial experience in the practice of law. There were three mitigating factors: absence of a prior disciplinary record; lack of a dishonest or selfish motive; and full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings. Ms. Futter violated Rule 31, Ariz.R.S.Ct., and Rule 42, Ariz.R.S.Ct., ER 5.5. PHOEBE L. HARRIS Bar No ; File No PDJ No By final judgment and order dated Sept. 9, 2015, the presiding disciplinary judge accepted an agreement for discipline by consent by which Phoebe L. Harris, Green Valley, Ariz., was reprimanded and ordered to pay the costs and expenses of the proceedings totaling $1,200. Ms. Harris and her father, attorney Walter Henderson, with whom she practices, represented an elderly couple (Les and Marjorie) in con- nection with their family trust and estate plan. Les s sons Jack and Gary were to receive certain property after Les and Marjorie died, and Marjorie s son Daniel was to receive other property. Marjorie suffered from Alzheimer s disease although her doctor certified that she had sufficient mental capacity to create a will and trust. She and Les were suspicious of Daniel, and they appointed Jack as the trustee of their trust. Mr. Henderson had Jack sign a representation and fee agreement by which he was to represent Jack as the trust administrator. The agreement provided that Jack waived any claim for conflict of interest regarding Attorney s role in representing Trustee and Trustor. Jack signed it, and Mr. Henderson had Les and Marjorie sign following the printed legend Approved by:. Mr. Henderson did not obtain an express, written and signed conflict of interest waiver from Les and Marjorie. Les died and Daniel was appointed Guardian for Marjorie. Jack and Daniel argued over Marjorie s care. Jack accused Daniel of misappropriating Marjorie s trust money; Daniel accused Jack of withholding payments to Marjorie from the trust in order to protect his remainderman interest. Daniel retained counsel and sued to remove Jack as trustee. Ms. Harris entered an appearance for Jack and instructed him to stop paying for Marjorie s care from the trust until Daniel furnished certain documents and otherwise complied with conservatorship statutes. In so doing, Harris took a position in favor of a current client (Jack) against a former client (Marjorie), without obtaining written, informed consent from Marjorie. Daniel s counsel moved to disqualify Ms. Harris as Jack s counsel on the ground that she and Mr. Henderson had an unwaived conflict of interest. The court agreed, holding that the purported conflict waiver in Jack s fee agreement was not sufficient to satisfy the written, informed consent 52 ARIZONA ATTORNEY JANUARY

3 requirements for an effective conflict of interest waiver by Marjorie. It disqualified Ms. Harris and Mr. Henderson from representing Jack. In other litigation, Daniel agreed to be replaced as Marjorie s guardian and conservator. The PDJ considered two aggravating factors: vulnerability of victim and substantial experience in the practice of law. There were three mitigating factors: absence of a prior disciplinary record, full and free disclosure to a disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings, and imposition of other penalties or sanctions. Ms. Harris violated Rule 42, Ariz.R.S.Ct., ERs 1.7, 1.9, 1.10, and 8.4(d). AERYN A. HEIDEMANN Bar No ; File No PDJ No Following a hearing panel s decision on Sept. 9, 2015, the presiding disciplinary judge entered a final judgment and order on Oct. 1, 2015, suspending Aeryn A. Heidemann, Scottsdale, for three years. A May 20, 2015, order placing Ms. Heidemann on interim suspension (PDJ ) was vacated. Ms. Heidemann also was assessed the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceeding in the amount of $2, Ms. Heidemann was a party to a family court case. The court ordered her to submit to a hair follicle test and to commence random ETG/ alcohol testing. Ms. Heidemann s hair follicle test was positive for cocaine and cocaine metabolites. The court ordered Ms. Heidemann to continue random drug testing and to submit to another hair follicle test. The second hair follicle test was positive for cocaine. Ms. Heidemann failed to comply with the family court s order that she continue random drug testing, and she failed to attend two status conferences. Ms. Heidemann did not respond to the State Bar s investigation. The sole aggravating factor was illegal conduct. The sole mitigating factor was absence of a prior disciplinary record. Ms. Heidemann violated Rule 42, ERs 3.2, 3.4(c), 8.1(b); and Rules 54(c) and 54(d), Ariz.R.S.Ct. WALTER L. HENDERSON Bar No ; File No PDJ No By final judgment and order dated Sept. 9, 2015, the presiding disciplinary judge accepted an agreement for discipline by consent by which Walter L. Henderson, Green Valley, Ariz., was reprimanded and ordered to pay the costs and expenses of the proceedings totaling $1,200. Mr. Henderson and his daughter, attorney Phoebe L. Harris, represented an elderly couple (Les and Marjorie) in connection with their family trust and estate plan. See the summary for Ms. JANUARY 2016 ARIZONA ATTORNEY 53

4 Harris, State Bar File No (above), for the particulars of this matter. The PDJ considered two aggravating factors: vulnerability of victim and substantial experience in the practice of law. There were three mitigating factors: absence of a prior disciplinary record, full and free disclosure to a disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings, and imposition of other penalties or sanctions. Mr. Henderson violated Rule 42, Ariz.R.S.Ct., ERs 1.7, 1.9, 1.10, and 8.4(d). VINCENT A. IANNONE, JR. Bar No ; File No PDJ No By final judgment and order dated Sept. 25, 2015, following a two-day hearing, Vincent A. Iannone, Jr., Lake Havasu City, Ariz., was suspended for six months and one day. He also was assessed the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceeding. In the underlying matter, Mr. Iannone pled guilty to misdemeanor assault in violation of A.R.S (A)(3), for inappropriately touching a prosecutor in the courtroom. The hearing panel found the touching to be sexual and demeaning. Mr. Iannone called the same prosecutor on the phone on another occasion concerning a work matter and asked her whether she was getting laid enough. Mr. Iannone also engaged in inappropriate and unwanted touching of a second prosecutor. Aggravating factors: Selfish motive, pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct, substantial experience in the practice of law, and illegal conduct. Mitigating factors: Lack of a prior disciplinary record, personal or emotional issues, and cooperation with the State Bar. Mr. Iannone violated Rule 42, Ariz.R.S.Ct., specifically ERs 8.4(b), 8.4(d), and Rule 41(g). BRENT J. KLEINMAN Bar No ; File Nos , , , PDJ No By final judgment and order dated Oct. 1, 2015, the presiding disciplinary judge accepted an agreement for discipline by consent by which Brent J. Kleinman, Phoenix, was suspended for four years and ordered to pay restitution to four clients totaling $3,200. Mr. Kleinman also was assessed the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceeding in the amount of $1, In multiple counts, Mr. Kleinman accepted fees from clients to perform legal services and then abandoned them. In count one, Kleinman agreed to represent certain clients in a landlord/ tenant dispute but then failed to contact the tenant s attorney and failed to communicate with his clients regarding their case. In count two, Mr. 54 ARIZONA ATTORNEY JANUARY

5 Kleinman represented a client in a criminal matter and agreed to seek an order allowing his client to serve her sentence in Nevada. He failed to seek the order and also failed to attend a hearing on behalf of this client. In count three, Kleinman stopped communicating with a client and failed to perform the agreed-upon legal services. In court four, he failed to file pleadings necessary to have his client appointed as executor of his father s estate and misrepresented the status of the matter to his client. Mr. Kleinman initially failed to respond to the State Bar; the State Bar issued a subpoena, and Mr. Kleinman complied with the subpoena only after a show cause hearing. There were four aggravating factors: prior disciplinary offenses; pattern of misconduct; multiple offenses; and bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceedings by intentionally failing to comply with the rules or orders of the disciplinary agency. There were no mitigating factors. Mr. Kleinman violated Rule 42, Ariz.R.S.Ct., ERs 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(a), 1.16(d), 8.1(b), 8.4(d), and Rule 54(d), Ariz.R.S.Ct. RICHARD M. MARTINEZ Bar No ; File No PDJ No By final judgment and order dated Sept. 15, 2015, the presiding disciplinary judge accepted an agreement for discipline by consent by which Richard M. Martinez, Tucson, was reprimanded and placed on probation for two years. Mr. Martinez must participate in the State Bar s Law Office Management Assistance Program and comply with periodic reporting requirements as deemed appropriate. Mr. Martinez also was ordered to pay the costs and expenses of the proceedings totaling $1,200. Mr. Martinez was hired to represent a client in an employment discrimination case. He negligently failed to adequately communicate with and diligently represent the client. The written fee agreement did not contain the requisite language from ER 1.5(d)(3) dealing with refunds of fees denominated earned on receipt. Mr. Martinez failed timely to communicate a Rule 68 (Ariz.R.Civ.P.) Offer of Judgment to the client that she would have accepted had she known of it, before the defense withdrew the offer. He also failed to notify the client of oral argument on a motion for summary judgment and failed to notify witnesses of their scheduled depositions. When the client fired him, Mr. Martinez delayed the substitution of counsel process and withheld file materials including video depositions, forcing new counsel to file motions to compel Martinez s compliance. The PDJ considered four aggravating factors: prior disciplinary offenses, selfish motive, pattern of misconduct, and substantial experience in the practice of law. JANUARY 2016 ARIZONA ATTORNEY 55

6 There were two mitigating factors: absence of a dishonest motive, and full and free disclosure to a disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings. Mr. Martinez violated Rule 42, Ariz.R.S.Ct., ERs 1.2, 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 1.5(d)(3), 1.16(d), and 8.4(d). JOHN M. RHUDE, JR. Bar No ; File Nos , , , PDJ No By final judgment and order dated Oct. 5, 2015, the presiding disciplinary judge accepted an agreement for discipline by consent by which John M. Rhude, Scottsdale, was reprimanded. Mr. Rhude also was placed on probation for two years requiring participation in LOMAP and fee arbitration with clients in four different matters. He also was assessed the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceeding. In the first matter, Mr. Rhude, a managing partner of the law firm of Corso and Rhude, oversaw representations of a husband and wife in a criminal case. The firm failed to obtain a written conflict waiver from the husband. After the prosecutor raised a possible conflict of interest, and the clients interests were no longer aligned, the firm billed for a meeting with the client regarding the conflict of interest. In count two, Mr. Rhude s firm failed to appear for two hearings because the firm failed to review the court docket upon accepting the representation and failed to notify the court that it deactivated two firm addresses previously provided to the court. After the second failure to appear, the court set a contempt hearing. Mr. Rhude s law partner, Mr. Corso, filed a motion blaming court staff for the firm s failure to appear, and ultimately was admonished by the court and fined. In count three, the firm was hired by a client s mother for a flat fee of $25,000 to provide criminal defense representation. The client s mother later asked the firm for an accounting to justify the fee. The firm provided the client s mother with an accounting that failed to distinguish between attorney and non-attorney work. The invoices later were edited to reflect the distinction between attorney and non-attorney work. The firm provided more than $25,000 worth of lawyer services. In count four, the firm was hired by a client in a criminal matter. The client was assigned to several different attorneys during the representation. On the day of trial, a firm associate appeared three minutes before trial. During trial, to the client s surprise, the associate informed the court he would call no witnesses in the client s defense. The client was found guilty of disorderly conduct based on the undisputed fact that the sheriff s office called the SWAT team to the scene caused by the client. There were two aggravating factors: A pattern of misconduct and multiple offenses; and there was one mitigating factor: Full and free disclosure to the disciplinary board. Mr. Rhude violated Rule 42, Ariz.R.S.Ct., specifically ERs 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.7, 1.15(a), 1.16(d), 5.1(a) and (b), 5.3(a), and 8.4(d). CAUTION! Nearly 17,000 attorneys are eligible to practice law in Arizona. Many attorneys share the same names. All discipline reports should be read carefully for names, addresses and Bar numbers. 56 ARIZONA ATTORNEY JANUARY