March, Tex. B.J Disciplinary Actions

Similar documents
December, Tex. B.J. 1040

DISBARMENTS On Sept. 27, Robert Joseph Smith [# ], 45, of Beaumont, was disbarred. An evidentiary panel of the District

General questions regarding attorney discipline should be directed to the Chief Disciplinary Counsel s

On Sept. 19, 2006, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals dismissed for want of prosecution the appeal of the complainant

Committee issued a public reprimand in Case No. S on June 13, BODA cause number

General questions regarding attorney discipline should be directed

LIONE & LEE, P.C STECK AVENUE SUITE A-119 AUSTIN, TEXAS (512)

On April 11, the Board of Disciplinary

judgment when the criminal appeal is final. BODA Cause No On July 30, 2014, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals signed an interlocutory

ending November 16, BODA Cause number

COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE REPORT TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE

Disciplinary Procedure 2.25, Bragg has. of 30 days from the date of the judgment

4-E Grievance Committee in Case

the appeal of James Okoro Okorafor [# ], 53, of Houston, from a judgment of active suspension signed on Oct. 21, 2010, by an evidentiary

On Feb. 5, 2007, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals dismissed for want of prosecution the appeal of Gordon M. White [# ], 47, of Richmond,

Bomba [# ], 62, of San Antonio,

Appeals signed a final judgment of disbarment

on a probated suspension from the practice of law in Texas beginning November 17, 2017, and ending November 16, BODA Cause No

S17Y0531. IN THE MATTER OF DAVID J. FARNHAM. This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the report and

Hasley Scarano, L.L.P. attorneys & counselors Our trial team has the experience and unparalleled success to get the right results.

S18Y0833, S18Y0834, S18Y0835, S18Y0836, S18Y0837. IN THE MATTER OF S. QUINN JOHNSON (five cases).

* * * TONY L. SCHAFFER, * Respondent *

On February 22, 2018, the Board of

MISSOURI S LAWYER DISCIPLINE SYSTEM

HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS AND SUITES. 500 South Washington, Fredericksburg, TX

Texas District 5A Grievance Committee

BEFORE THE DISTRICT 6 GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE EVIDENTIARY PANEL 6-1 STATE BAR OF TEXAS JUDGMENT OF FULLY PROBATED SUSPENSION. Parties and Appearance

Uresti violated Canons 2A, 2B, and 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct and Article V, Section 1-a(6) of the Texas Constitution.

On July 26, 2016, the Board of Disciplinary

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: JOSE W. VEGA RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION

public warning to Carbett J. Trey Duhon III, county judge of Waller

S14Y0692. IN THE MATTER OF LAXAVIER P. REDDICK-HOOD. This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the Report and

LAWYERING FOR A LAWYER WITH A DISABILITY BEFORE THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS

RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR CHAPTER 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1-1. NAME. The name of the body regulated by these rules shall be THE FLORIDA BAR.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 107,751. In the Matter of DAVID K. LINK, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

The Anatomy of a Complaint

BEFORE THE BOARD OF DISCIPLINARY APPEALS APPOINTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS AGREED INTERLOCUTORY ORDER OF SUSPENSION

ofthe State Bar of Texas appeared by attorney and announced ready. Respondent, Bryan P. Cartall,

S14Y0625. IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM CHARLES LEA. This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the Report and

THE GRIEVANCE PROCESS

[SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) ARE UNCHANGED]

To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the. a certification of default filed by the District IIIB Ethics

107 ADOPTED RESOLUTION

Steven M. Mezrow, you stand before the Disciplinary Board, your

People v. Ringler. 12PDJ087. June 21, Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Victoria Lynne Ringler (Attorney

THE NEW GRIEVANCE SYSTEM AND HOW TO AVOID IT. BETTY BLACKWELL Chair, Commission for Lawyer Discipline Standing Committee of The State Bar

S17Y1499, S17Y1502, S17Y1623. IN THE MATTER OF ANTHONY SYLVESTER KERR. These disciplinary matters are before the court on the reports filed by

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY : : : : : : : : : :

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS

Code of Judicial Conduct.

ATLANTA BAR ASSOCIATION LAWYER REFERRAL AND INFORMATION SERVICE OPERATING RULES

Legal Referral Service Rules for Panel Membership

S17Y0374. IN THE MATTER OF JOHN ANDREW LESLIE. This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the petition for voluntary

LAWYER REGULATION. PAMELA K. ALLEN Bar No ; File No Supreme Court No. SB D

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA ORDER. Recommendation of the Three-Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board dated March 24,

People v. Evanson. 08PDJ082. August 4, Attorney Regulation. Following a default sanctions hearing pursuant to C.R.C.P (b), the Presiding

[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Armon (1997), Ohio St.3d.] Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Permanent disbarment --

Docket No. 26,646 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 2001-NMSC-021, 130 N.M. 627, 29 P.3d 527 August 16, 2001, Filed

Pursuant to R. 1 :20-4(f)(l), the District VA Ethics Committee ("DEC") certified the record

S17Y1329. IN THE MATTER OF RICKY W. MORRIS, JR. seeking the disbarment of Ricky W. Morris, Jr. (State Bar No ), based

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 118,378. In the Matter of LANCE M. HALEY, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA INITIAL BRIEF

Disciplinary Summary

S17Y0871. IN THE MATTER OF JEFFREY L. SAKAS. This disciplinary matter is before the Court on special master C. David

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 117,361. In the Matter of LAWRENCE E. SCHNEIDER, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility. Board Rules

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. No. SC Complainant, The Florida Bar File v. Nos ,011(17B) AMENDED REPORT OF REFEREE

STATE BAR OF GEORGIA OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO OPINION

Disciplinary Summary

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

People v. Tolentino. 11PDJ085, consolidated with 12PDJ028. August 16, Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Gregory

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: LOUIS JEROME STANLEY NUMBER: 14-DB-042 RULING OF THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD INTRODUCTION

WHAT TO DO WHEN YOU OR ANOTHER ATTORNEY CAN NO LONGER PRACTICE LAW

APPENDIX RULE MEMBERSHIP CLASSIFICATIONS

PUBLISHED AS A PUBLIC SERVICE BY THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 117,607. In the Matter of MATTHEW B. WORKS, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

CHAPTER 20 RULE DISCIPLINE AND DISABILITY: POLICY JURISDICTION

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO B-1043 IN RE: MARK G. SIMMONS ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

NO. 01-B-1642 IN RE: CHARLES R. ROWE ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

REPORT, DECISION AND IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS

General questions regarding attorney discipline should be directed

To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of. This matter was before us on a certification of default

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee)

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 13-B-2461 IN RE: ANDREW C. CHRISTENBERRY ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE Rules and Guidelines Member Handbook

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: RAUSHANAH SHAKIA HUNTER NUMBER: 16-DB-085 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO B-1077 IN RE: RAYMOND CHARLES BURKART III ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

POLICE BOARD CITY OF CHICAGO. DISCIPLINARY CASES QUARTERLY REPORT March 31, 2015

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Nittskoff, 130 Ohio St.3d 433, 2011-Ohio-5758.]

S19Y0028. IN THE MATTER OF SAMUEL WILLIAMS, JR. This is the second appearance of this matter before this Court. In our first

ALABAMA REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS BOARD ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CHAPTER 780 X 14 DISCIPLINARY ACTION TABLE OF CONTENTS

People v. Michael Scott Collins. 14PDJ042. December 2, 2014.

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO B-1208 IN RE: DOUGLAS KENT HALL ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 109,512. In the Matter of SUSAN L. BOWMAN, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

unearned retainers and converted bankruptcy estate funds to her own use.

Transcription:

March, 2006 69 Tex. B.J. 280 REINSTATEMENT Disciplinary Actions Richard D. Esper, 53, of El Paso, has petitioned the 210th District Court of El Paso County for reinstatement as a member of the State Bar of Texas. RESIGNATIONS On Dec. 15, 2005, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation, in lieu of discipline, of Cheryl Gillum Turner, 48, of Houston. BODA ACTIONS On Jan. 20, 2006, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals signed a judgment affirming the partially probated suspension in the appeal of Bartholomew C. Okonkwo, 48, of Houston, issued by the evidentiary panel for the District 4-B Grievance Committee on Feb. 16, 2005. Okonkwo remains on probated suspension until Sept. 23, 2006. On Jan. 20, 2006, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals signed a final judgment of disbarment against Wade Vincent Shang, 50, of San Francisco, Calif. On May 2, 2005, Shang was found guilty of two counts of tax evasion in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7201, an intentional crime as defined in the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, in CR02-0239-01 WHA, styled United States of America v. Wade Vincent Shang, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Shang was sentenced to 21 months confinement in the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, a fine of $10,000, and an assessment of $200.The conviction is final. DISBARMENTS On Nov. 17, 2005, Walter D. Bryan, 45, of Round Rock, was disbarred. An evidentiary panel of the District 8-C Grievance Committee found that Bryan, in five cases, neglected legal matters entrusted to him; failed to carry out the obligations owed to his clients; failed to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters or promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; failed to explain matters to the extent reasonably necessary to permit clients to make informed decisions; failed to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect clients interests; failed to surrender papers to which the clients were entitled upon termination; and failed to timely respond to notice of the complaint. Bryan violated Rules 1.01(b) (1) and (b) (2), 1.03(a) and (b), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a) (8). He was ordered to pay $3,600 in attorney s fees and costs and $14,555 in restitution. On Oct. 21, 2005, Claudia Valles, 36, of Carlsbad, N.M., received a default judgment of disbarment. The District 7-A Grievance Committee found that on Nov. 14, 2003, Vales was retained to provide legal representation on behalf of the complainant in an immigration matter. The complainant paid Valles a $1,750 retainer. Thereafter, Valles failed to complete the obligation owed to the complainant when she failed to provide any

meaningful legal services. Valles failed to respond to numerous calls and messages from the complainant or inform the complainant that she had moved. In a second matter, on June 15, 2002, Valles was employed by the complainant s law firm as a full-time immigration law attorney. On Feb. 15, 2003, Valles left her place of employment and relocated to New Mexico. During her tenure with the complainant s law firm, Valles neglected the legal matters entrusted to her when she failed to provide any meaningful legal work on behalf of her clients. She failed to respond to her clients calls, letters, or emails, or account for the missing files assigned to her. Valles failed to respond to notice of the complaint. Valles violated Rules 1.01(b)(1) and (b)(2), 1.03(a) and (b), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8). She was ordered to pay $1,775 in attorney fees and $679.46 in costs On Nov. 4, 2005, Garry L. Washington, 52, of Houston, was disbarred. The District 4-B Grievance Committee found that in one matter, Washington was hired for representation in a criminal matter, but failed to perform any meaningful work on behalf of his client and failed to keep his client apprised as to the status of the case. In a second matter, Washington was hired for representation in a criminal matter, but failed to research or investigate the legal issues relevant to the case. Washington failed to utilize an interpreter to communicate with his client and therefore was unable to adequately communicate with or represent his client. Washington violated Rules 1.01(b)(1) and (b)(2) and 1.03(a) and (b). He was ordered to pay $5,000 in restitution, $2,000 in attorney s fees, and $586 in costs. The complainant in the first matter filed an appeal seeking restitution. SUSPENSIONS On Oct. 5, 2005, Everett J. McClain, 49, of Houston, received a one-year, active suspension modified on Nov. 30, 2005, to begin Dec. 1, 2005. The District 4-C Grievance Committee found that McClain represented a client while administratively suspended from the practice of law. He failed to file a written response to the grievance. McClain has appealed the decision. McClain violated Rules 8.01(b) and 8.04(a)(11). He was ordered to pay $2,000 in attorney s fees and $343 in costs. On Oct. 18, 2005, Bill Lance Fitzgerald, 36, of Lubbock, received a three-year, default judgment of partially probated suspension, effective Nov. 1, 2005, with the first year actively served and the remainder probated. The District 16-A Grievance Committee found that in January 2003, the complainant hired Fitzgerald to handle a personal injury matter on a contingency fee basis. Thereafter, Fitzgerald failed to perform any significant legal services on behalf of the complainant. Fitzgerald failed to respond to the complainant s phone calls or return the complainant s file upon request for its return. Fitzgerald failed to respond to notice of the complaint. Fitzgerald violated Rules 1.01(b)(1) and (b)(2), 1.03(a) and (b), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $1,440 in attorney s fees and $574 in costs. On Jan. 3, 2006, Thomas A. Ford, 36, of Dallas, received a two-year, agreed judgment of fully probated suspension effective Jan. 1, 2006. The District 7-A Grievance Committee found that in three different matters, Ford neglected the bankruptcy cases of his clients by failing to timely file petitions. He failed to communicate with each of these three clients.

In a fourth matter, Ford neglected a client s litigation matter by failing to obtain the judge s signature on an order to reinstate. He failed to respond to notice of the complaint. In a fifth matter, Ford neglected a client s real estate matter and failed to respond to the complaint. In a sixth matter, Ford was hired to represent a client who was the defendant in two lawsuits. Ford neglected the client s pending litigation, failed to return any unearned fees when his services were terminated, and failed to timely respond to the complaint. Ford violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8). He made full restitution to each of the above clients. Ford was ordered to pay $1,500 in attorney s fees and costs. On Nov. 29, 2005, David Lashford, 54, of Texarkana, received a 30-day suspension, with the imposition of the suspension suspended and Lashford placed on probation for a period of six months, effective Dec. 1, 2005. The evidentiary panel of the District 1-B Grievance Committee found that the complainant hired Lashford to file a motion to modify a custody order, and a hearing was held on Oct. 9, 2000. Thereafter, he failed to review and provide objections to a proposed order prepared by opposing counsel after the hearing. Lashford failed to timely file a motion to set aside judgment after that proposed order was entered. He failed to effectively communicate with the complainant by timely providing the complainant with copies of the proposed order and the entered order. The panel found in mitigation that subsequent to the misconduct in this matter Lashford had modified his office procedures and had attended ethics courses. Lashford violated Rules 1.01(b)(1) and (b)(2) and 1.03(a). He was ordered to pay $3,983.33 in attorney s fees and costs. On Jan. 3, 2006, John David Herrick, 36, of San Antonio, accepted a five-year, partially probated suspension, effective Feb. 2, 2006, with the first two years actively served and the remainder probated. The 166th District Court of Bexar County found Herrick unreasonably delayed resolution of cases and failed to timely respond to requests for information from an appropriate disciplinary authority. Herrick violated Rules 3.02 and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $1,250 for attorney s fees and costs. On Jan. 12, 2006, Howard M. Rubinstein, 60, of San Diego, Calif., accepted a twoyear, fully probated suspension. The Evidentiary Panel of the District 4-F Grievance Committee found that Rubinstein represented clients in an insurance claim involving mold, which required substantial remediation of their home. During the pendency of the claim, numerous insurance payments were directed to Rubinstein by his clients. Although Rubinstein placed the funds in his trust account and disbursed those funds to the contractor providing the remediation, he failed to maintain accurate records of his disbursements and was unable to provide his client with a complete or accurate accounting of the funds paid. Rule 1.14(a) Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct requires that an attorney maintain complete records of a client s trust account transactions for a period of five years following termination of the representation. Because Rubinstein failed to maintain these records, it was necessary for the State Bar to obtain records through discovery in order to determine what discrepancy, if any, existed in Rubinstein s trust account.

Rubinstein received $119,586.87 from the insurance company for satisfaction of claims related to the complainant s mold claim. Rubinstein paid out $119,046.80, leaving a discrepancy of $540.07. Rubinstein violated Rules 1.14(a). He agreed to pay $540.07 in restitution and $1,500 in attorney s fees. On Jan. 12, 2006, Rodney M. Phelps, 62, of Brentwood, Tenn., accepted a three-year, fully probated suspension, effective Jan. 1, 2006. The District 6A Grievance Committee found that in one matter, the complainant employed Phelps to represent her in a personal injury matter. Phelps neglected the legal matter entrusted to him, failed to keep his client reasonably informed, and failed to comply with reasonable requests for information. Phelps failed to return the complainant s file to her. The complainant subsequently hired new counsel, and Phelps failed to release the complainant s file to her new counsel. In a second matter, the complainant employed Phelps to represent her in a personal injury matter. Phelps filed a lawsuit on the complainant s behalf, but subsequently allowed it to be dismissed for want of prosecution. Virtually all of the complainant s contact was with staff members, whom Phelps failed to properly supervise. Additionally, Phelps failed to respond to the complainant s requests for information. Phelps violated Rules 1.01(b)(1) and (b)(2), 1.03(a) and (b), 1.15(d), and 5.03(a). Phelps was ordered to pay $1,200 in attorney s fees. PUBLIC REPRIMANDS On Dec. 13, 2005, James Steven Hershberger, 48, of Midland, received a public reprimand. An evidentiary panel of the District 16-B Grievance Committee found that in April 2003, the complainant s former attorney referred the complainant s case to Hershberger. The former attorney had filed a lawsuit on behalf of the complainant against the Texas Department of Criminal Justice on Nov. 26, 2002. In early May 2003, Hershberger obtained the complainant s file and Hershberger met with the complainant on May 23, 2003, to discuss the case. However, the complainant s case had been dismissed on May 7, 2003, for lack of service. On June 4, 2003, Hershberger filed a motion to reinstate case and a brief in support of motion to reinstate case, in which he asserted that he had succeeded the complainant s former attorney as the complainants counsel. The panel found that there was, in fact, an attorney-client relationship established. The court reinstated the case on June 6, 2003. On July 1, 2003, the complainant sent Hershberger information that he had requested regarding the matter. Thereafter, Hershberger failed to pursue the matter and allowed the case to be dismissed on Nov. 5, 2003. Hershberger violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.10(b)(2), and 1.03(a). He was ordered to pay $3,222.26 in attorney s fees and costs. Hershberger has appealed the decision. On Jan. 10, 2006, Victor M. Bonner, 63, of Houston, accepted a public reprimand. The evidentiary panel of the District 4-E Grievance Committee found that Bonner failed to properly communicate with a client who was a claimant against the manufacturers of a drug. In addition, Bonner permitted conduct involving professional misconduct by a non-lawyer employee who failed to properly calendar or follow up on the client s claim. Bonner violated Rules 1.03(a) and 5.03(b)(2)(i). He agreed to pay $900 in attorney s fees.

On Jan. 4, 2006, Terry L. Marsaw, 50, of Dallas, accepted a public reprimand. The District 6-A Grievance Committee found that the complainant hired Marsaw to obtain a divorce and Marsaw filed a petition on her behalf. After the complainant's husband filed an answer, Marsaw told the complainant that he was uninterested in continuing representation in a contested divorce. Thereafter, Marsaw failed to withdraw and failed to take steps to protect the complainant's interests. Marsaw failed to appear at two hearings in the complainant's case. The divorce was granted, but the case was dismissed for want of prosecution because a decree had not been entered. The case was reinstated and counsel for the complainant's husband prepared the final decree at the judge's request. During the course of the representation, Marsaw failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed regarding the status of the matter or promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. Marsaw failed to explain the matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the complainant to make informed decisions regarding the representation. Marsaw violated Rules 1.01(b) (1) and (b) (2), 1.03(a) and (b), and 1.15(d). Marsaw was ordered to pay $750 in attorney s fees and $450 in restitution.