CARL E. BAYLIS. Order (public reprimand) entered by the Board December 30, BOARD MEMORANDUM 1
|
|
- Dinah Knight
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Public Reprimand No CARL E. BAYLIS Order (public reprimand) entered by the Board December 30, BOARD MEMORANDUM 1 The respondent, Carl E. Baylis, was admitted to the bar in A year later he drafted a trust for Antonia Quevillon, who funded it by deeding over six apartment buildings. The trust provided that, upon Antonia's death, the net income from the trust would be shared equally by her five children for twenty years, whereupon the trust assets would be divided among the children of her son Marcel. The trust named the respondent and Estelle Ballard, one of Antonia's daughters, as co-trustees. After Antonia's death in 1971, tension developed between Ballard and her siblings. Her relationship was particularly acrimonious with her brother Marcel, the successor trustee if either co-trustee resigned. Ballard managed the trust property almost exclusively until While it appreciated in value substantially during that period (from $256,000 to $1.3 million), it paid the income beneficiaries (Ballard's siblings) less than $50,000 over the same period. By 1985 the siblings had engaged counsel to voice their dissatisfaction over the lack of income from the trust properties. At that time the respondent urged that the properties be sold and the proceeds invested in government bonds. The siblings agreed and Ballard raised no immediate objection. The co-trustees received two offers, one to buy two properties for $215,000 and the other to buy the four remaining properties for $1.25 million. The combined offers for the six properties exceeded their total appraised value of $1.3 million. Ballard told the respondent she wanted to own the properties for herself or to keep them in the family. The respondent gave her the opportunity to match the offers they had received, but Ballard could not finance the purchase. She then refused to sell the properties. Hoping she eventually would be persuaded, the respondent prepared purchase-and-sale agreements for the two transactions. The buyers signed the agreements and paid deposits toward the purchase price. Ballard still refused to sell. The respondent and counsel for the siblings proposed that she be given one of the properties in exchange for her agreement to approve the sale of the others. To this Ballard agreed, but the prospective buyer of that property sued the co-trustees, both individually and in their capacity as trustees. The trust settled the case with the prospective buyer and paid the expenses of the suit. Relying on the advice of counsel, the respondent paid these expenses, including those of his own defense, out of trust assets. In December 1986, the respondent filed a complaint for instructions, seeking permission to sell the trust property and terminate the trust. Ballard refused to permit the sale, and the Probate Court judge deferred action on the complaint until Ballard agreed. The parties dispute whether the judge was aware of Ballard's refusal to sell: a later court found that the judge did not know, while the hearing committee assigned to this disciplinary matter credited
2 the respondent's testimony that he had advised the judge of Ballard's refusal. In any event, neither the respondent nor counsel for the beneficiaries pressed the matter before the judge, and neither took any action when the judge failed to act. In 1988 the income beneficiaries, later joined by the remaindermen, filed suit against the cotrustees in the Probate Court. The trust was eventually terminated and the property was transferred to the remaindermen. By then the value of the property had depreciated to slightly more than $1 million. The trial court judge found that the co-trustees had breached their fiduciary duties, had acted in bad faith, had improperly used trust assets to pay their own expenses in defending the suit brought by the prospective purchaser, and were entitled to no management fees. The court awarded damages based on the difference between the refused offers to purchase and the current value of the properties, plus imputed interest. The co-trustees appealed from the judgment, but the Appeals Court and the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, although the latter expressed doubt regarding the finding that the respondent had acted in bad faith. When the respondent was unable to settle the matter with the plaintiffs, he sought bankruptcy protection. His bankruptcy proceedings themselves had a tortuous history, including two decisions by the United States Court of Appeals. In the end, the Court of Appeals decided that only one of the respondent's breaches of fiduciary duty using trust assets to pay the costs of defending himself and settling the potential purchaser's lawsuit constituted a nondischargeable "defalcation" within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Act. All other damages flowing from the fiduciary breaches were deemed dischargeable in bankruptcy. Bar Counsel filed a petition for discipline alleging various disciplinary violations arising out of the respondent's conduct as co-trustee and counsel to the trust. The hearing committee allowed Bar Counsel's motion to give preclusive effect to findings made by the Probate Court and upheld on appeal. See, e.g., Bar Counsel v. Board of Bar Overseers, 420 Mass. 6, 11 Mass. Att y Disc. R. 291 (1995). After hearing, the committee determined that the respondent was "a trustee confronted with a recalcitrant co-trustee," and that while he "disagreed with Ballard's desire to retain the properties, [he] had the good faith belief that Ballard was acting within the scope of her authority as co-trustee." Hearing Committee Report at 12. Further, the committee found, the respondent "held the reasonable belief that his resignation would harm the beneficiaries given the intense animosity between Ballard and her brother, the next successor trustee." Id. A majority of the committee concluded that the respondent had not violated any of the disciplinary rules charged in the petition for discipline. A "dissenting" hearing committee member would have found a violation of Canon One, DR 1-102(A)(6) (conduct reflecting adversely on fitness to practice), in the respondent's "reckless disregard of his fiduciary duties" (id. at 16, quoting from the Bankruptcy Court's decision), but concurred in the majority's recommendation that the petition for discipline be dismissed. Bar Counsel has appealed from the committee's report and recommendation. He asks that we (1) make additional factual findings, including some previously made by the Probate Court; (2) modify the hearing committee's conclusions of law; and (3) recommend a term suspension. We allow the appeal in part and order a public reprimand. Bar Counsel s appeal is predicated primarily on his quarrel with the hearing committee over the scope of issue preclusion in this case. In order for findings to be given preclusive effect in a later proceeding against the same party, it must be demonstrated that they were actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment and were essential to the judgment. See, e.g., Fireside Motors, Inc. v. Nissan Motor Corp., 395 Mass. 366, (1982); Restatement (Second) of Judgments 27, at 250 (1982) ("Restatement"). Generally speaking, "essential" means "necessary to the judgment." Restatement 27, comment j, at 261. We understand that phrase to mean that the judgment could not stand if the first court had not made the putatively "necessary" determination. Applying that definition here, we find that many of the forty-three determinations Bar Counsel invokes are far from "necessary to the judgment" of the Probate Court. The judgment surely would not fall if, for example, the
3 Probate Court had not found that the respondent was named a co-trustee because of his legal expertise the very first "essential" determination Bar Counsel faults the hearing committee for ignoring. At the same time, however, the Supreme Judicial Court has expanded the applicability of issue preclusion to encompass certain findings not strictly essential to the final judgment in the prior action if it is clear that the issues underlying them were treated as essential to the prior case by the court and the party to be bound. Home Owners Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass n v. Northwestern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 354 Mass. 448, 455 (1968) (emphasis in original), quoted in Comm r of DTE v. Dugan, 428 Mass. 138, 144 (1998). Stated another way, it is necessary that such findings be the product of full litigation and careful decision. Id. An administrative tribunal s failure to grant preclusive effect to such findings may constitute legal error. Comm r of DTE v. Dugan, supra. Such an error occurred here when the hearing committee disregarded the Probate Court s finding, among other fiduciary breaches, that the respondent had failed to disclose Ballard's refusal to sell to the judge before whom the complaint for instructions was pending. Because one can imagine a scenario in which the Probate Court s judgment might have entered without a finding that the respondent made no such disclosure, the finding may not be strictly essential. Nonetheless, the finding especially when coupled with the respondent s apparently false representation in the petition for instructions that Ballard had already submitted her resignation as trustee is such powerful evidence of fiduciary breach as to be central to the Probate Court s judgment and to Supreme Judicial Court s opinion upholding the judgment. See Rutanen v. Ballard, supra, 424 Mass. at 732. It is also clear that the parties and the courts treated the issue as important in the prior proceedings and that it was fully litigated. See Ex. 1, 71-72; Rutanen v. Ballard, supra, 424 Mass. at 732. Under these circumstances, it was error for the hearing committee to relitigate the issue and make a contradictory finding based on the respondent's testimony before it. See Comm r of DTE v. Dugan, supra, 428 Mass. at 144. To rule otherwise here would raise the unseemly specter of the bar s disregarding settled findings, twice affirmed on appeal, when called upon to judge the conduct of one of its own. The respondent s failure to apprise the judge of Ballard s refusal to sell was exacerbated by his failure to press the matter before the Probate Court once his complaint for instructions was filed. This is not to say that he was obliged to urge a particular action on the court, only that he could not stand by while the court failed to act as trust properties continued to lose value in a falling market. He had an obligation to urge the court to hold a contested hearing. The hearing committee s finding that other parties to that proceeding also could have done so but did not misses the point: unlike the income beneficiaries, the respondent, as trustee, owed a fiduciary duty to the trust to take affirmative action to preserve trust property. This, the Probate Court found, he failed to do, and his breach caused harm to the trust. We decline Bar Counsel s invitation to immerse ourselves in numerous specific findings made by the Probate Court and disregarded by the hearing committee. We do believe that the hearing committee erred in failing to honor the Probate Court s critical findings that the respondent had breached his fiduciary duties to the trust (1) by neglecting to take appropriate action to protect trust assets in the face of Ballard s recalcitrance, and (2) by paying expenses of the prospective purchaser s suit out of trust assets. Both of these breaches were fully litigated in the Probate Court, were essential to the judgment entered, and were affirmed on appeal more than once. The hearing committee should have accorded them full preclusive effect in the disciplinary proceeding. See Comm r of DTE v. Dugan, supra, 428 Mass. at 144 (1998) (reversing judgment where administrative agency had failed to give preclusive effect to prior proceedings). The respondent rejoins that the issues before the Probate Court differed from those before the hearing committee, which was right to make findings its own findings to determine whether disciplinary rules were violated and whether discipline should be imposed. We
4 disagree. The Probate Court findings established that the respondent violated fiduciary obligations in a setting that arose from an attorney-client relationship (with the settlor) and which itself involved the rendering of legal services (to the trust). In these circumstances, the question is not whether the issue of fiduciary breach is different from the issue of disciplinary violation but whether the proven fiduciary breaches necessarily encompass conduct violative of the disciplinary rules. See id. at We believe the fiduciary breaches mandate a determination that the respondent violated Canon Six, DR 6-101(A)(3), and Canon Seven, DR 7(101(A)(1)-(3). The petition charged the respondent with neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him (in violation of Canon Six, DR 6-101(A)(3)); with failing to seek the lawful objectives of his client, failing to carry out a contract of employment with a client for professional services, and prejudicing or damaging his client during the course of the professional relationship (in violation of Canon Seven, DR 7-101(A)(1)-(3)); and with engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice (in violation of Canon One, DR 1-102(A)(6)). The respondent argues that discipline would be inappropriate because he was acting as a trustee, not as a lawyer. We do not agree. First, DR 6-101(A) makes no reference to clients, as the Court noted in rejecting such an argument in Matter of Eisenhauer, 426 Mass. 448, , 14 Mass. Att y Disc. R. 251, (1998). Second, although the disciplinary rules do not define the word client, the Court has not construed the word in cases involving disciplinary rules in which the word client does appear so narrowly as to exclude the circumstances here. See 426 Mass at , 14 Mass. Att y Disc. R. at 257. As in Eisenhauer, the respondent s conduct supports a determination that he violated his fiduciary duties to the trust. Id. Moreover, he also did legal work for the trust. See Matter of Stern, 425 Mass. 708, , 13 Mass. Att y Disc. R. 749, 753 (1997) (attorney discipline appropriate where role as trustee was inextricably linked to his role as... attorney ). Consequently, we deviate from the hearing committee report in that we add findings that the respondent violated the rules charged under Canons Six and Seven. We reject Bar Counsel s argument that this conduct also violated DR 1-102(A)(6). In Matter of the Discipline of Two Attorneys, 421 Mass. 619, 12 Mass. Att y Disc. R. 580 (1996) (Two Attorneys), the Court declined to find in an escrow agent s breach of fiduciary duties a violation of DR 1-102(A)(5), a related catch-all provision of Canon One that prohibits conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Noting that an escrow agent s duties were not entirely clear and that the misconduct, although involving court process to some extent, was not a paradigmatic or otherwise egregious interference with the administration of justice (such as perjury or misrepresentations to a court), the Court shrank from finding a violation of so general a rule under such attenuated circumstances. 421 Mass. at , 12 Mass. Att y Disc. R. at Where possible, the Court suggested, the better course... is to deal with alleged professional misconduct under specific rules... rather than to invoke the general language of DR 1-102(A)(5). 421 Mass. at 629, 12 Mass. Att y Disc. R. at 592. We are aware of only one case, Matter of Dittami, 9 Mass. Att y Disc. R. 102, 102 (1993), in which DR 1-102(A)(6) was the sole basis for a finding of misconduct, and that case was decided before Two Attorneys. In this case, therefore, where specific rules under Canons Six and Seven fit the conduct more comfortably, we see no point in straining DR 1-102(A)(6) to reach the situation. The hearing committee noted that the respondent was stuck with a recalcitrant co-trustee in Ballard, harbored a good faith belief that Ballard was acting within the scope of her authority, and reasonably believed his resignation would wreak more harm than staying on as trustee. We have no quarrel with those observations, which carry some force in mitigation of the misconduct. They are not a defense, however. Having elected to stay on, the respondent continued to shoulder fiduciary obligations. His failure to take adequate measures to protect the trust was a violation of those obligations. The respondent also argues that it would be unfair to discipline him for paying his litigation
5 expenses out of trust funds when he had done so on the written advice of counsel, both of them prior members of the Board of Bar Overseers. While there appears to be no Massachusetts authority on the point, other jurisdictions have rejected the notion that advice of counsel can be a complete defense to a disciplinary charge. See Kentucky Bar v. Guidugli, 967 S.E.2d 587, 589 (Ky. 1998); People v. Casey, 948 P.2d 1014, 1017 (Colo. 1997). We note that the United States Court of Appeals did not hesitate to find the respondent s use of trust funds to be a nondischargable defalcation within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Act. We find misconduct in the use of the funds, but treat the effort to obtain advice of counsel as a mitigating circumstance. See Kentucky Bar v. Guidugli, supra, 967 S.E.2d at 589. We observe further that the sanction we impose would be no different if we had found no violation. With respect to disposition, we find nothing in the respondent s conduct, taken as a whole, to warrant the suspension Bar Counsel seeks. There was no self-dealing here, with the possible exception of paying, on his counsel s advice, the expenses of defending actions he believed in good faith to be in the trust s interests. The respondent was saddled with a bull-headed cotrustee, and while he did not handle the situation as he should have, he does not deserve to be suspended. The matter should be concluded by public reprimand. Conclusion For all of the foregoing reasons, we adopt the hearing committee s report but modify it by adding findings and conclusions of law that the respondent violated Canon Six, DR 6-101(A), and Canon Seven, DR 7-101(A)(1), (2), and (3). As a consequence, we order that the respondent, Carl E. Baylis, be publicly reprimanded. Respectfully submitted, THE BOARD OF BAR OVERSEERS By: James B. Re Secretary Approved: December 8, Compiled by the Board of Bar Overseers based on the record of proceedings before the Board. Please direct all questions to webmaster@massbbo.org Board of Bar Overseers. Office of Bar Counsel. All rights reserved.
) No. SB D RICHARD E. CLARK, ) ) No Respondent. ) ) O P I N I O N REVIEW FROM DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
In the Matter of SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc RICHARD E. CLARK, ) Attorney No. 9052 ) ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No. SB-03-0113-D ) Disciplinary Commission ) No. 00-1066 Respondent. ) ) O P I N I O
More information36C Attorneys' fees and costs. NC General Statutes - Chapter 36C Article 10 1
Article 10. Liability of Trustees and Rights of Persons Dealing with Trustees. 36C-10-1001. Remedies for breach of trust. (a) A violation by a trustee of a duty the trustee owes under a trust is a breach
More informationIN RE: DAVID M. HASS NO. BD
IN RE: DAVID M. HASS NO. BD-2016-016 S.J.C. Order of Term Suspension entered by Justice Spina on June 1, 2016, with an effective date of July 1, 2016. 1 Page Down to View Memorandum of Decision 1 The complete
More informationAMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS Definitions Adopted by the Michigan Supreme Court in Grievance Administrator v Lopatin, 462 Mich 235, 238 n 1 (2000) Injury is harm to a
More informationTri-State Regional Special Education Law Conference November 2, 2017 Omaha, Nebraska
Tri-State Regional Special Education Law Conference November 2, 2017 Omaha, Nebraska Legal Ethics and Special Education Disputes Part I: Recent Attorney Discipline Cases from the Tri-State Region Thomas
More information107 ADOPTED RESOLUTION
ADOPTED RESOLUTION 1 2 3 RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association reaffirms the black letter of the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions as adopted February, 1986, and amended February 1992,
More information[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. McCray, 109 Ohio St.3d 43, 2006-Ohio-1828.]
[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. McCray, 109 Ohio St.3d 43, 2006-Ohio-1828.] OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. MCCRAY. [Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. McCray, 109 Ohio St.3d 43, 2006-Ohio-1828.] Attorneys
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 11-1518 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- RANDY CURTIS BULLOCK,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO OPINION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: Filing Date: March 14, 2013 Docket No. 33,280 IN THE MATTER OF GENE N. CHAVEZ, ESQUIRE AN ATTORNEY SUSPENDED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW BEFORE
More informationIntentional Conduct May Be Required to Prove Defalcation under Section 523(a)(4) In Certain Circuits. Elizabeth Vanderlinde, J.D.
2012 Volume IV No. 28 Intentional Conduct May Be Required to Prove Defalcation under Section 523(a)(4) In Certain Circuits Elizabeth Vanderlinde, J.D. Candidate 2013 Cite as: Intentional Conduct May Be
More information1 The complete order of the Court is available by contacting the Clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County.
IN RE: JONATHAN HURLEY NO. BD-2016-095 S.J.C. Order of Term Suspension entered by Justice Botsford on March 7, 2017.1 Page Down to View Memorandum of Decision 1 The complete order of the Court is available
More informationS14Y0692. IN THE MATTER OF LAXAVIER P. REDDICK-HOOD. This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the Report and
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: October 6, 2014 S14Y0692. IN THE MATTER OF LAXAVIER P. REDDICK-HOOD. PER CURIAM. This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of
More informationMISCONDUCT BY ATTORNEYS OR PARTY REPRESENTATIVES BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (NLRB)
MISCONDUCT BY ATTORNEYS OR PARTY REPRESENTATIVES BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (NLRB) Section 102.177 of the Board s Rules and Regulations controls the conduct of attorneys and party representatives/non
More informationROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTNERS, SUPERVISORY, AND SUBORDINATE LAWYERS
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTNERS, SUPERVISORY, AND SUBORDINATE LAWYERS THE LOUISIANA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT RULE 5.1 The Louisiana Supreme Court adopted Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct
More informationIn this diversity action for money damages, Plaintiff Lydian Private Bank, d/b/a
Lydian Private Bank v. Leff et al Doc. 67 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------x LYDIAN PRIVATE BANK d/b/a VIRTUALBANK, Plaintiff,
More information1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: JULY 13, NO. 34,083 5 MARVIN ARMIJO,
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: JULY 13, 2016 4 NO. 34,083 5 MARVIN ARMIJO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v. 8 CITY OF ESPAÑOLA, 9 Defendant-Appellant. 10
More informationLOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD. IN RE: CLAUDE C. LIGHTFOOT, JR. (Bar Roll No.: 17989) DOCKET NO.: IO-DB-057
LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: CLAUDE C. LIGHTFOOT, JR. (Bar Roll No.: 17989) DOCKET NO.: IO-DB-057 RECOMMENDAnONS OF THE HEARING COMMITTEE This matter came before this hearing committee
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY Disciplinary Review Board Docket No. ORB
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY Disciplinary Review Board Docket No. ORB 90-123 IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT G. MAZEAU, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW Decision and Recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board Argued: September
More informationTHE NEW GRIEVANCE SYSTEM AND HOW TO AVOID IT. BETTY BLACKWELL Chair, Commission for Lawyer Discipline Standing Committee of The State Bar
THE NEW GRIEVANCE SYSTEM AND HOW TO AVOID IT BETTY BLACKWELL Chair, Commission for Lawyer Discipline Standing Committee of The State Bar Attorney at Law Board Certified Criminal Law 1306 Nueces St. Austin,
More informationPMI MEMBER ETHICAL STANDARDS MEMBER CODE OF ETHICS
PMI MEMBER ETHICAL STANDARDS MEMBER CODE OF ETHICS The Project Management Institute (PMI) is a professional organization dedicated to the development and promotion of the field of project management. The
More informationSupreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department D31694 C/prt AD3d A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J. WILLIAM F. MASTRO REINALDO E. RIVERA PETER B. SKELOS MARK C. DILLON, JJ. 2004-00999
More informationTHE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL INTRODUCED BY GREENLEAF, ALLOWAY, SCHWANK, FONTANA, MENSCH AND HUGHES, MARCH 6, 2013
PRIOR PRINTER'S NO. PRINTER'S NO. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL No. Session of INTRODUCED BY GREENLEAF, ALLOWAY, SCHWANK, FONTANA, MENSCH AND HUGHES, MARCH, SENATOR GREENLEAF, JUDICIARY,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. C. JOHNSON, J.-Alan F. Hall appeals the unanimous recommendation of
This opinion was flied for record at "6~
More informationTHE FIBRE BOX ASSOCIATION AMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS NOVEMBER 2004
THE FIBRE BOX ASSOCIATION AMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS NOVEMBER 2004 ARTICLE 1. OFFICES 1.1 Principal Office - Delaware: The principal office of the Association in the State of Delaware shall be in the
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 113,970. In the Matter of JARED WARREN HOLSTE, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 113,970 In the Matter of JARED WARREN HOLSTE, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed October 9, 2015.
More informationBeverly Hills Bar Association Trusts & Estates Section. Case Summaries for May and June of 2018
Beverly Hills Bar Association Trusts & Estates Section Case Summaries for May and June of 2018 Case Updates Sveen v. Melin (Decided June 11, 2018) United States Supreme Court Case No. 16-1432 (Certiorari
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: ) ) PAUL DRAGER, ) ) ) Respondent. ) Bar Docket Nos. 278-01 & 508-02 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD
More information[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Armon (1997), Ohio St.3d.] Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Permanent disbarment --
Cleveland Bar Association v. Armon. [Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Armon (1997), Ohio St.3d.] Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Permanent disbarment -- Appropriation of client funds and a pattern of neglect
More informationORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: RANDALL J. CASHIO NUMBER: 14-DB-001 RULING OF THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD
ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: RANDALL J. CASHIO NUMBER: 14-DB-001 RULING OF THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD 14-DB-001 8/27/2015 INTRODUCTION This attorney disciplinary
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC REPORTER. Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, 303 K Street, Anchorage,
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS NO. 98-PR-1405 TOPEL BLUEPRINTING CORPORATION, APPELLANT, SHIRLEY M. BRYANT, APPELLEE.
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
More informationSTATE OF VERMONT PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD. Decision No. 98
98 PRB [Filed 11-Apr-2007] STATE OF VERMONT PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD In re: Bradney Griffin, Esq. PRB File No 2007.071 Decision No. 98 Respondent is charged with failure to cooperate with disciplinary
More informationS13Y1581.IN THE MATTER OF JACK O. MORSE. This disciplinary matter is before the Court on a Petition for Voluntary
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: September 23, 2013 S13Y1581.IN THE MATTER OF JACK O. MORSE. PER CURIAM. This disciplinary matter is before the Court on a Petition for Voluntary Discipline filed
More informationIN THE MATTER OF DAVID ZAK. April 10, 2017.
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY : : : : : : : : : :
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of Respondent. RICHARD G. CERVIZZI, A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration
More informationPMI MEMBER ETHICAL STANDARDS MEMBER ETHICS CASE PROCEDURES
PMI MEMBER ETHICAL STANDARDS MEMBER ETHICS CASE PROCEDURES The following ethics case procedures are the only rules for processing possible violations of the ethical standards promulgated by the Project
More informationORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: SATRICA WILLIAMS-BENSAADAT NUMBER: 12-DB-046
ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: SATRICA WILLIAMS-BENSAADAT NUMBER: 12-DB-046 RULING OF THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD 12-DB-046 7/27/2015 INTRODUCTION This is a disciplinary
More informationSUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 13-B-2461 IN RE: ANDREW C. CHRISTENBERRY ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
01/27/2014 "See News Release 005 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 13-B-2461 IN RE: ANDREW C. CHRISTENBERRY ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM This disciplinary
More informationTHE FIBRE BOX ASSOCIATION. AMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS April 2014
THE FIBRE BOX ASSOCIATION AMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS April 2014 ARTICLE 1. OFFICES 1.1 Principal Office - Illinois: The principal office of the Association shall be in the State of Illinois or in such
More informationSUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO B-1208 IN RE: DOUGLAS KENT HALL ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
09/18/2015 "See News Release 045 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 2015-B-1208 IN RE: DOUGLAS KENT HALL ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING PER CURIAM This disciplinary
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc. ) Arizona Supreme Court. ) Conduct No Respondent. ) ) O P I N I O N ) )
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc ) Arizona Supreme Court In the Matter of ) No. JC-03-0002 ) HON. MICHAEL C. NELSON, ) Commission on Judicial ) Conduct No. 02-0307 Respondent. ) ) O P I N I O N ) ) Review
More informationPeople v. Romo-Vejar, 05PDJ057. March 31, Attorney Regulation. Following a sanctions hearing, a Hearing Board publicly censured Respondent
People v. Romo-Vejar, 05PDJ057. March 31, 2006. Attorney Regulation. Following a sanctions hearing, a Hearing Board publicly censured Respondent Jesus Roberto Romo-Vejar (Attorney Registration No. 17350)
More informationPROBATE, ESTATES AND FIDUCIARIES CODE (20 PA.C.S.) - OMNIBUS AMENDMENTS Act of Jul. 2, 2014, P.L. 855, No. 95 Session of 2014 No HB 1429 AN
PROBATE, ESTATES AND FIDUCIARIES CODE (20 PA.C.S.) - OMNIBUS AMENDMENTS Act of Jul. 2, 2014, P.L. 855, No. 95 Cl. 20 Session of 2014 No. 2014-95 HB 1429 AN ACT Amending Title 20 (Decedents, Estates and
More informationDocket No. 26,646 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 2001-NMSC-021, 130 N.M. 627, 29 P.3d 527 August 16, 2001, Filed
1 IN RE QUINTANA, 2001-NMSC-021, 130 N.M. 627, 29 P.3d 527 In the Matter of ORLANDO A. QUINTANA, ESQUIRE, An Attorney Licensed to Practice Law Before the Courts of the State of New Mexico Docket No. 26,646
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE February 17, 2005 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE February 17, 2005 Session CITY OF MORRISTOWN v. REBECCA A. LONG Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hamblen County No. 2003-64 Ben K. Wexler, Chancellor
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: : : ROBERT M. SILVERMAN : Bar Docket No. 145-02 D.C. Bar No. 162610, : : Respondent. : ORDER OF THE BOARD ON
More informationNo SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 1990-NMSC-084, 110 N.M. 405, 796 P.2d 1101 August 29, 1990, Filed Disciplinary Proceedings.
1 IN RE STEERE, 1990-NMSC-084, 110 N.M. 405, 796 P.2d 1101 (S. Ct. 1990) IN THE MATTER OF PHILIP W. STEERE, ESQ. An Attorney Admitted to Practice Before the Courts of the State of New Mexico No. 19337
More informationThe Florida Bar v. Bruce Edward Committe
The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 96-BG A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
More informationNational Association of Professional Background Screeners Member Code of Conduct and Member Procedures for Review of Member Conduct
Original Approval: 6/03 Last Updated: 7/6/2017 National Association of Professional Background Screeners Member Code of Conduct and Member Procedures for Review of Member Conduct The NAPBS Member Code
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC11-2286 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, vs. LOUIS RANDOLF TOWNSEND, JR., Respondent. [April 24, 2014] PER CURIAM. We have for review a referee s report recommending that Respondent
More information[Cite as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Lavelle, 107 Ohio St.3d 92, 2005-Ohio-5976.]
[Cite as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Lavelle, 107 Ohio St.3d 92, 2005-Ohio-5976.] MAHONING COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION ET AL. v. LAVELLE. [Cite as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Lavelle, 107 Ohio St.3d 92, 2005-Ohio-5976.]
More informationFINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS
People v. Wright, GC98C90. 5/04/99. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge and Hearing Board disbarred respondent for his conduct while under suspension. Six counts in the complaint alleged
More informationNAPD Formal Ethics Opinion 16-1
NAPD Formal Ethics Opinion 16-1 Question: The Ethics Counselors of the National Association for Public Defense (NAPD) have been asked to address the following scenario: An investigator working for Defense
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 10 0520 Filed October 15, 2010 IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD, vs. Complainant, PETER SEAN CANNON, Respondent. On review of the report of the Grievance
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. The Florida Bar File No ,684(15B) SHELLY GOLDMAN MAURICE, THE FLORIDA BAR S ANSWER BRIEF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, Supreme Court Case No. SC04-700 v. The Florida Bar File No. 2002-51,684(15B) SHELLY GOLDMAN MAURICE, Respondent. / THE FLORIDA BAR S ANSWER
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE NO CASE NO. 91,325
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE NO. 97-04 CASE NO. 91,325 RE: ELIZABETH LYNN HAPNER / ELIZABETH L. HAPNER'S RESPONSE TO THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION'S REPLY COMES NOW, Elizabeth
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida PER CURIAM. No. SC14-2049 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, vs. CYRUS A. BISCHOFF, Respondent. [March 2, 2017] We have for review a referee s report recommending that Respondent, Cyrus
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 84 Article 1 1
Chapter 84. Attorneys-at-Law. Article 1. Qualifications of Attorney; Unauthorized Practice of Law. 84-1. Oaths taken in open court. Attorneys before they shall be admitted to practice law shall, in open
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DOUGLAS BURKE, Plaintiff/Counter Defendant/ Garnishor-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED August 5, 2010 v No. 290590 Wayne Circuit Court UNITED AMERICAN ACQUISITIONS AND LC No. 04-433025-CZ
More informationSUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO B-1043 IN RE: MARK G. SIMMONS ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
10/16/2017 "See News Release 049 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 2017-B-1043 IN RE: MARK G. SIMMONS ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING PER CURIAM This disciplinary matter
More informationSUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO B-2342 IN RE: CARLA ANN BROWN-MANNING ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
03/04/2016 "See News Release 012 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 2015-B-2342 IN RE: CARLA ANN BROWN-MANNING ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING PER CURIAM This disciplinary
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. NO. 30,404. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF VALENCIA COUNTY John W. Pope, District Judge
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule 1-0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this
More informationKENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION Ethics Opinion KBA E-430 Issued: January 16, 2010
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION Ethics Opinion KBA E-430 Issued: January 16, 2010 The Rules of Professional Conduct are amended periodically. Lawyers should consult the current version of the rules and comments,
More informationREPORT, DECISION AND IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS
People v. Posselius, No.01PDJ062. 03.20.02. Attorney Regulation. The Hearing Board suspended Respondent Edward J. Posselius, attorney registration number 17010 from the practice of law in the State of
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 07-BG A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No.
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
More informationCalifornia Bar Examination
California Bar Examination Essay Question: Professional Responsibility And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question In 1995, Lawyer
More informationScenario 3. Scenario 4
Scenario 1 As you go through your stack of jail mail you read a letter from an inmate complaining that he has been in the county jail for almost a year now and that his court appointed attorney has only
More informationCODE OF ETHICS CODE OF ETHICS BYLAWS CODE OF ETHICS REGULATIONS STATEMENT OF ETHICS VIOLATION INITIAL SCREENING INQUIRY
CODE OF ETHICS I II III IV CODE OF ETHICS BYLAWS CODE OF ETHICS REGULATIONS STATEMENT OF ETHICS VIOLATION INITIAL SCREENING INQUIRY I ARTICLE II CODE OF ETHICS CODE OF ETHICS PREAMBLE Section 1. Dedication
More information[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Nittskoff, 130 Ohio St.3d 433, 2011-Ohio-5758.]
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Nittskoff, 130 Ohio St.3d 433, 2011-Ohio-5758.] DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. NITTSKOFF. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Nittskoff, 130 Ohio St.3d 433, 2011-Ohio-5758.] Attorneys
More informationPeople v. Alster. 07PDJ056. March 12, Attorney Regulation. Following a Sanctions Hearing, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge suspended Respondent
People v. Alster. 07PDJ056. March 12, 2009. Attorney Regulation. Following a Sanctions Hearing, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge suspended Respondent Christopher Alster (Attorney Registration No. 11884)
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ANSWER BRIEF
THE FLORIDA BAR, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA v. Complainant, HERMAN THOMAS, Case No. SC11-925 TFB File No. 2009-00,804(2B) Respondent. / ANSWER BRIEF Allison Carden Sackett, Bar Counsel The Florida
More informationLOSS OF LICENSE: Rules Governing Suspension or Disbarment. by Dorothy Anderson, Assistant Bar Counsel February 2010
LOSS OF LICENSE: Rules Governing Suspension or Disbarment by Dorothy Anderson, Assistant Bar Counsel February 2010 A. WHAT TO DO WHEN YOU HAVE JUST BEEN SUSPENDED OR DISBARRED The vast majority of lawyers
More informationS17Y1499, S17Y1502, S17Y1623. IN THE MATTER OF ANTHONY SYLVESTER KERR. These disciplinary matters are before the court on the reports filed by
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: September 13, 2017 S17Y1499, S17Y1502, S17Y1623. IN THE MATTER OF ANTHONY SYLVESTER KERR. PER CURIAM. These disciplinary matters are before the court on the reports
More informationBeware Distinctions Between Veil Piercing And Alter Ego
Published by Law360 on May 13, 2015. Beware Distinctions Between Veil Piercing And Alter Ego --By Evan C. Hollander and Dana Yankowitz Elliott, Arnold & Porter LLP Law360, New York (May 13, 2015, 10:27
More informationNO. 06-B-2702 IN RE: HERSY JONES, JR. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
03/30/2007 See News Release 022 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 06-B-2702 IN RE: HERSY JONES, JR. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM This disciplinary matter
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC96979 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, vs. MELODY RIDGLEY FORTUNATO, Respondent. [March 22, 2001] PER CURIAM. We have for review a referee s report recommending that attorney
More informationPeople v. Allyn. 10PDJ068. February 7, Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Glenn B. Allyn (Attorney Registration
People v. Allyn. 10PDJ068. February 7, 2011. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Glenn B. Allyn (Attorney Registration No. 25428), effective March 10, 2011. Allyn was disbarred
More information[Cite as Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kafantaris, 121 Ohio St.3d 387, 2009-Ohio-1389.]
[Cite as Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kafantaris, 121 Ohio St.3d 387, 2009-Ohio-1389.] TRUMBULL COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. KAFANTARIS. [Cite as Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kafantaris, 121 Ohio St.3d 387, 2009-Ohio-1389.]
More informationCase grs Doc 32 Filed 10/14/15 Entered 10/14/15 14:08:19 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 10
Document Page 1 of 10 IN RE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LONDON DIVISION ESTON ARTHUR ELDRIDGE CASE NO. 15-60312 DEBTOR UNITED FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY V. ESTON ARTHUR ELDRIDGE
More informationIn Re: Braswell, 358 N.C. 721, 600 S.E.2d 849 (2004) In Re: Allen, N.C., S.E.2d (2007) In Re: Jarrell, Jr (2007)
JUDICIAL CONDUCT CASES 1 A. Conflict of Interest In Re: Braswell, 358 N.C. 721, 600 S.E.2d 849 (2004) Respondent refused to recuse himself from hearing a case in which the plaintiff also had a lawsuit
More informationPROBATE CODE SECTION PROBATE CODE SECTION
PROBATE CODE SECTION 4000-4034 4000. This division may be cited as the Power of Attorney Law. 4001. Sections 4124, 4125, 4126, 4127, 4206, 4304, and 4305 may be cited as the Uniform Durable Power of Attorney
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 30, 2018 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 30, 2018 Session 09/24/2018 RAFIA NAFEES KHAN v. REGIONS BANK Appeal from the Chancery Court for Knox County No. 194115-2 Clarence E. Pridemore, Jr.,
More informationCAZA Progressive Discipline Policy
CAZA Progressive Discipline Policy CAZA and its members, like a chain, are only as strong as its weakest link. To build and protect the reputation of the Association and its members, there must be clear
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS HARBOR PARK MARKET, INC., Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant- Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION October 25, 2007 9:10 a.m. v No. 267207 Emmet Circuit Court WILLIAM and LINDA GRONDA,
More information[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Walker, 119 Ohio St.3d 47, 2008-Ohio-3321.]
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Walker, 119 Ohio St.3d 47, 2008-Ohio-3321.] DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. WALKER. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Walker, 119 Ohio St.3d 47, 2008-Ohio-3321.] Attorney misconduct
More information[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Wexler, 139 Ohio St.3d 597, 2014-Ohio-2952.]
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Wexler, 139 Ohio St.3d 597, 2014-Ohio-2952.] DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. WEXLER. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Wexler, 139 Ohio St.3d 597, 2014-Ohio-2952.] Attorneys Misconduct
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2012
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2012 Opinion filed April 25, 2012. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D09-1528 Lower Tribunal No.
More informationNATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE REGULATION 10 DISCIPLINE WITH RESPECT TO STUDENTS
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE REGULATION 10 DISCIPLINE WITH RESPECT TO STUDENTS (A) CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCES GIVING RISE TO DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AND PROCEDURES FOR INITIATING DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: ) ) TODD A. SHEIN, ) Bar Docket No. 453-02 ) Respondent. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL
More informationTribal Government Code of Conduct
Tribal Government Code of Conduct TABLE OF CONTENTS Article I. Title and Purpose Article II. Principles Article III. Conflict of Interest Article IV. Fiduciary Duty Article V. Compensation Article VI.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner v. WILLIAM E. BUCHKO, Respondent No. 1695 Disciplinary Docket No.3 No. 255 DB 2010 Attorney Registration No. 26033 (Beaver
More information[SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) ARE UNCHANGED]
(Filed - April 3, 2008 - Effective August 1, 2008) Rule XI. Disciplinary Proceedings. Section 1. Jurisdiction. [UNCHANGED] Section 2. Grounds for discipline. [SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) ARE UNCHANGED] (c)
More informationFROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY Glen A. Tyler, Judge. In this appeal, we consider whether the circuit court
PRESENT: All the Justices THOMAS HENDERSON OPINION BY v. Record No. 120463 JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN April 18, 2013 AYRES & HARTNETT, P.C. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY Glen A. Tyler, Judge
More informationSupreme Court of Louisiana
Supreme Court of Louisiana FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #063 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 9th day of December, 2014, are as follows: PER CURIAM:
More informationKENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY PRACTICE OF LAW
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY PRACTICE OF LAW SCR 3.130(1.7) Conflict of interest: current clients (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent
More informationPeople v. Evanson. 08PDJ082. August 4, Attorney Regulation. Following a default sanctions hearing pursuant to C.R.C.P (b), the Presiding
People v. Evanson. 08PDJ082. August 4, 2009. Attorney Regulation. Following a default sanctions hearing pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.5(b), the Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Dennis Blaine Evanson (Attorney
More informationLOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: LOUIS JEROME STANLEY NUMBER: 14-DB-042 RULING OF THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD INTRODUCTION
LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD 14-DB-042 3/1/2016 IN RE: LOUIS JEROME STANLEY NUMBER: 14-DB-042 RULING OF THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD INTRODUCTION This is an attorney disciplinary
More informationMODEL FEDERAL RULES OF DISCIPLINARY ENFORCEMENT
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION MODEL FEDERAL RULES OF DISCIPLINARY ENFORCEMENT Developed by Standing Committee on Professional Discipline and Center for Professional Discipline February 14, 1978 Model Federal
More informationProper Business Practices and Ethics Policy
Proper Business Practices and Ethics Policy Synopsis 1. Crown Castle International Corp. ( Crown Castle ) and its affiliates 1 strive to conduct their business with honesty and integrity and in accordance
More information