The ARDC has accused a lawyer of defrauding Blue Cross to obtain maternity coverage. The ARDC alleges that the lawyer wrongfully claimed to be employed by a company where her father worked.
Comment: if true, the allegations are serious and will merit discipline. This illustrates the trouble people have in getting insurance in the United States, particularly those who work in small firms. That difficulty, however, is no excuse and Blue Cross has a right to be made whole.
Edward X. Clinton, Jr.
Report: Trump’s Private Attorney Tells White House Staff Not To Lawyer Up – Talking Points Memo:
This post is not about politics, but it is very important.
Trump hired Marc Kasowitz, an attorney, to defend him. Kasowitz has told other White House staffers not to get their own lawyers. If you are part of an organization and you are advised not to retain an attorney by an attorney, think long and hard before following this advice.
The other guy’s lawyer (in this case Marc Kasowitz) has no duty to you and, indeed, does not care about you at all. He might be planning to throw you under the bus to save his own client.
In sum, if you had some meaningful conduct that might be questioned, you should seek legal advice immediately.
Being told you don’t need a lawyer, means that you probably need one!
Edward X. Clinton, Jr.
Notice of Public Discipline | Idaho State Bar:
A lawyer was given a public reprimand by the Professional Conduct Board of the Idaho State Bar for violating Rule 7.1 (communications concerning a lawyer’s services and Rule 7.3(a) (solicitation of clients). Essentially the Board found that the lawyer’s communications to a sales representative and to certain homeowners were misleading.
This disciplinary case related to Mr. Winward’s communications with sales representatives of a Boise homebuilder and his communications with two homeowners who had purchased homes from that homebuilder. Mr. Winward falsely indicated to the sales representatives that he was interested in buying a home from the homebuilder. He also falsely indicated to homeowners that he represented another homeowner regarding the homebuilder’s allegedly defective foundations. Although not Respondent’s intent, the homeowners understood from their communications with Respondent that their foundations may be defective and that Respondent was offering to provide legal services to pursue a lawsuit on behalf of homeowners regarding the allegedly defective foundations. Bar Counsel considered as mitigation the fact that Mr. Winward sought the advice of counsel regarding his communications with the homeowners.
Edward X. Clinton, Jr.
‘via Blog this’
This case is worth reading because it is a summary of all the ways a lawyer can get himself in serious trouble. There were four allegations of misconduct, and all were found proven.
The first allegation was that a creditor obtained a judgment against the lawyer. Rather than paying the judgment, the lawyer forged and filed a satisfaction of judgment with the Court. The Ohio Supreme Court found:
¶ 7} Thereafter, Davey Tree’s counsel informed Donchatz that a balance remained due and asked him to withdraw the satisfaction of judgment. Donchatz confirmed that the judgment remained unpaid, but he did not withdraw his filing. The court later granted Davey Tree’s motion to vacate the satisfaction and reinstated the judgment.{¶ 8} In October 2013, more than three years after the default judgment was entered and nearly 18 months after it was reinstated, Donchatz moved the court to reconsider the default judgment. Determining that the motion was frivolous and without merit, the court denied it and awarded sanctions to Davey Tree. But Donchatz did not pay the judgment or sanctions until April 15, 2014.{¶ 9} Based on this conduct, the board found that Donchatz violated Prof.Cond.R 3.1 (prohibiting a lawyer from bringing or defending a proceeding that is unsupported by law or lacks a good-faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law), 3.3(a)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal), 3.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal), 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice). We adopt these findings of fact and misconduct.
{¶ 12} At the hearing, Donchatz admitted that he accepted the $100,000 check from Cracknell without providing the written notices required by Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from entering into a business transaction with a client unless the client is advised in writing of the desirability of obtaining independent legal counsel and the terms of the transaction are fair, reasonable, and fully disclosed in a writing signed by the client) and therefore violated the rule the moment he took the loan. In addition to finding a violation of that rule, the board found that he violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(b) (requiring an attorney to communicate the basis or rate of the fee and expenses within a reasonable time after commencing the representation, preferably in writing). Donchatz does not dispute these findings of fact or misconduct, and after independently reviewing the record, we adopt them.
{¶ 16} The board found that by filing the motion in limine that contained false statements and misrepresentations, Donchatz violated Prof.Cond.R 3.1, 3.3(a)(1), 3.4(c), 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(d)
The finding: {¶ 30} Before the board, Donchatz argued that the “stipulated entry and consent judgment” was proper under Loc.R. 25.01 of the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, General Division. As explained below, however, the board determined that Loc.R. 25.01 did not apply in this case. And, based on the foregoing, the board found that by filing the “stipulated entry and consent judgment,” Donchatz violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.1, 3.3(a)(1), 3.4(c), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
The ARDC has accused an attorney of converting bond refunds that were due to his clients. When a defendant is arrested he can often post a bond to allow him to remain free while the case is proceeding through the courts. Here, the ARDC has alleged that in four instances the attorney received a refund of the bond at the conclusion of the criminal case and that he was required to deposit the refund in his trust account and pay it (minus his legal fees) to the defendant.
These allegations have not been proven and there has been no finding of fact.
Edward X. Clinton, Jr.
The ARDC has accused a lawyer of creating false documents in a loan transaction. The pertinent allegations are these:
“2. In late 2010 or early 2011, Respondent was engaged in discussions with another lender, Prime Equity of Atlanta, Georgia, about borrowing $25,000 from Prime Equity. Respondent intended to use the proceeds of that loan to reduce the amount of LOP’s obligation to American Community. Prime Equity told Respondent that it would not lend the money to LOP unless Prime Equity received a first security interest in the Stephens County property, which would require American Community to agree to subordinate its own security interest in that property.
In sum, these are allegations and have not been proven. The ARDC tends to be very concerned about cases where lawyers created false documents.
Edward X. Clinton, Jr.
The ARDC has brought a complaint against Jerry Allen Schulman (“Respondent”) and has alleged that the Respondent allowed numerous patent applications and trademarks to become abandoned because he did not respond to correspondence from the United States Patent Office. Unfortunately, the lawyer also allegedly made false representations to the clients that their patent applications were pending and proceeding normally. In Count II of the Complaint, the Administrator alleges as follows:
12. Respondent did not communicate to ASICO that the applications referred to in Count I had been abandoned. Periodically, Respondent would provide ASICO with a document called the “ASICO PATENT DOCUMENT” that purported to give the status of each of the company’s patent applications. These dockets did not show that the patent applications had been abandoned. In fact, many of the patents had been abandoned, and Respondent knew that but did not include that information on the chart, in an effort to conceal his inaction from his client.
13. In many instances, the dockets stated that action had been taken by Respondent and the application was “awaiting action,” presumably by the USPTO.
14. For example, Respondent had a docket dated June 17, 2009 (“Sample Docket”). The Sample Docket falsely stated that patent application number 11/534,573 was “pending.” In fact, that application had been abandoned on June 15, 2007. Respondent knew that his statement that patent application number 11/534,573 was pending was false, because he knew the application had been abandoned.15. The Sample Docket did not show that patent application 11/864,865 had been abandoned on June 12, 2008. On June 17, 2009, Respondent knew that the application had been abandoned, but chose not to include that with the information conveyed to ASICO.
16. The Sample Docket falsely stated that patent application number 12/050,167 was “undergoing preexam processing.” In fact, the application had been abandoned on December 2, 2008. Respondent knew that his statement that patent application 12/050,167 was undergoing preexam processing was false, because he knew the application had been abandoned.
17. The Sample Docket falsely stated that patent application number 12/263,315 was “undergoing preexam processing.” In fact, Respondent had received a Notice to File Missing Parts on November 18, 2008, a notice to which Respondent never provided a response. Respondent knew that his statement that patent application number 12/263,315 was undergoing preexam processing was false, because he knew that he had received the Notice to File Missing Parts.
18. The Sample Docket falsely stated that patent application number 12/408,715 was filed and awaiting action. In fact, Respondent had received a Notice to File Missing Parts on April 15, 2009, a notice to which Respondent never provided a response. Respondent knew that his statement that patent application number 12/408,715 was awaiting action was false, because he knew he had received the Notice to File Missing Parts.19. Respondent also prepared another document he titled “ASICO Trademarks.” This charts purported to represent the status” of each ASICO trademark that Respondent handled. The charts do not show that some of the trademark applications had been abandoned. Respondent knew that some of the trademark applications had been abandoned but did not convey that information to ASICO.
20. Respondent knew that the representations he made to ASICO regarding the status of the patent and trademark applications were false because he had received notices from the USPTO advising him that the applications had been abandoned due to his inaction.
21. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation by providing ASICO with charts purporting to show the status of patent and trademark applications that contained false statements, or intentionally omitted truthful information in an effort to conceal his inactivity, in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990 and 2010).
Comment: these allegations have not been proven and the Respondent has not filed his response to the complaint. What made this case interesting for the ARDC was the repeated efforts to deceive the client that the patent and trademark applications were pending.
Edward X. Clinton, Jr.
The presiding disciplinary judge has ordered a 30 day suspension of Patrick Camunez. The case is captioned In the Matter of a Member of The State Bar of Arizona, Bar No. 028662.
The attorney was previously disciplined. He then failed to accurately report the prior discipline when he applied for a general counsel position.
The decisions explains that: “Mr. Camunez’s transgressions arose when he misrepresented to a potential employer the substance of his prior disciplinary offenses. Mr. Camunez was admonished by the Attorney Discipline Probable Cause Committee on August 29, 2014, for “alter[ing] an e-mail he obtained from the Office of the Chief Counsel, National Guard Bureau, to help facilitate his efforts to secure a promotion while serving in the Arizona National Guard as a civilian government attorney.” While interviewing for a general counsel position in February 2015, Mr. Camunez misrepresented that he was disciplined in 2014 for failing to report a supervisor’s breach of attorney/client privilege, not for altering an e-mail.”
The decision explains the rationale for the discipline as follows: “The truth matters. The object of lawyer discipline is to protect the public, the legal profession, the administration of justice, and to deter other attorneys from engaging in unprofessional conduct. In re Peasley, 208 Ariz. 27, 38, 90 P.3d 764, 775 (2004). When the truth is not accepted, but instead covered over, then the insights of attorney discipline may never take root and grow. Whatever the cause, Mr. Camunez is encouraged to identify it, uproot it, and determine to be truthful. While attorney discipline is not intended to punish the offending attorney, the sanctions imposed may have that incidental effect. Id. As the proposed sanction of suspension and probation meets the objectives of discipline, it is accepted.”
This is a rare case where an attorney was disciplined for statements made to a potential employer.
Edward X. Clinton, Jr.
The ARDC has charged a lawyer with wrongfully obtaining a credit report of the opposing party. Obtaining a credit report would not normally be a problem. However, if the allegations are true, the lawyer misrepresented his identity in seeking the report.
These are the key allegations:
“ On April 29, 2014, Respondent entered his appearance on behalf of Bozena Wysocki (“Bozena”) in her petition for dissolution of marriage from her husband, Jacek Wysocki (“Jacek”), in Cook County Circuit Case No. 2013 D 7670.
This is a hearing board decision which can be appealed. The Panel explained:
“After suffering an injury while working as a police officer with the Cook County Sheriff’s office, Respondent remained off work and collected temporary total disability benefits for more than two years. During this time, Respondent also worked as an attorney and assumed a paid position as an elected member of the McHenry County Board. Respondent did not obtain approval to work these secondary jobs as required by workplace rules, which might have reduced the amount of disability benefits he received. The Administrator proved Respondent engaged in dishonest conduct by intentionally failing to obtain approval for his secondary employment while on disability in order to continue to collect full disability benefits and earn income from his other jobs….
Legal Ethics Lawyer 