Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Summary:
Pro
bono
work,
alongside
other
mitigating
circumstances,
Respondent Mark Joseph Fischer refused to pay his clients former husband.
He admitted during the attorney disciplinary proceedings to have disbursed funds to
his dissolution-of-marriage client and to himself in the amount of his attorneys fees,
in a manner not in accordance with the terms of the separation agreement adopted
by the court. His justification for refusing to pay his clients former husband was
that his client had directed him as her attorney to withhold payment from her
former husband because of certain issues she had encountered in the disposal of
certain conjugal properties.
The Hearing Board ordered that he be disbarred since disbarment was the
presumed sanction for the misappropriation cases, such as Fischers case, aside
from violating the courts order (i.e., separation agreement adopted by the court).
Respondent Fischer appealed from the Hearing Boards order disbarring him.
Respondent argued that the Hearing Board did not appropriately consider mitigating
circumstances such as his cooperation during the disciplinary proceedings,
reputation in the community, pro bono activities and service, and his practice in an
area of the State where few attorneys are available.
The Supreme Court of Colorado agreed with Respondent Fischer. The Court
held that the sanction imposed by the Board was manifestly excessive and
unreasonable for it failed to consider and balance the aggravating and mitigating
circumstances.
Court reiterated the ratio in decided cases that an attorneys pro bono work is a
mitigating factor. Hence from disbarment, the Court reversed the Boards decision
and instead imposed suspension for one year and one day.
However, the extent of pro bono work as regards mitigating a penalty cannot
be fully described due to the presence of other factors factors which are
preliminarily discussed by the Court before discussing the pro bono work rendered
by the respondent.
Summary: Due to the pro bono work which strained his personal and family
finances, respondent Pyles misappropriated his clients funds.
He justified
clients
for
fee
or
otherwise,
instead
of
upholding
the
referees
recommendation of disbarment.
This case stemmed out of the various violations of rules of professional conduct
applicable to lawyers committed by respondent David A. Pyles.
client
and
escrowed
funds;
misrepresentations
to
conceal
those
services for which he received no fees or fees considerably small than those
appropriate for the services rendered, which in turn had a detrimental effect on his
own
personal
and
family finances.
When
that
happened,
he
began
to
misappropriate client funds. From the diagnosis of the psychologist who examined
respondent, Pyles had rationalized the behavior constituting the misconduct as
being justifiable because of what he considered as a superseding moral ethic which
was to aid the underdog. His actions, as furthered by the Court, were not motivated
by avarice nor for personal, social or financial aggrandizement.
However, the primary justification by the Court was that respondent Pyles was no
longer engaged in the general practice of law. He rather rendered services which
did not involve the rendition of legal services or the giving of legal advice to clients
on a fee basis nor the handling of clients money. These services, according to the
Court, did not pose any threat to the public.
violations
respondent
committed.
These
violations
included
More so,
Respondent Mark Hagers professional services were engaged to pursue legal action
against Warner-Lambert Co. with respect to its head-lice shampoo Nix because the
product was ineffective in eradicating head lice as a Nix-resistant strain of lice had
evolved.
Traficonte. It was for the purpose of investigating potential bases for a class action
suit against the Warner-Lambert Co.
Warner-Lambert Co. however contacted Traficonte to begin settlement, with
respondent Hager aware of and involved in the negotiations. At first, he informed
his clients that negotiations with Warner-Lambert Co. had begun but he did not
disclose any terms.
Without informing his clients, respondent Hager, Traficonte and Warner-Lambert
entered into a settlement agreement. Respondent Hagers clients were paid due to
the settlement agreement.
One of respondents clients however asked whether they (Hager and Traficonte)
were paid by Warner-Lambert to abandon their representation.
They refused to
reply however. This prompted the client to file a complaint with the Bar Counsel
concerning Hager only.
upheld. However, his reinstatement, unlike in other cases where a number of years
had to elapse, was conditioned on certain compliance.
These included
respondent not having been previously subject to disciplinary proceedings and his
good character in general as testified by three witnesses. However, from the facts,
it seemed the pro bono work, alongside other mitigating circumstances, did not do
much.
In fact, unlike the Board which did not impose further reinstatement
The case stemmed out of respondent Shirley Dvoraks act of filing a false tax return.
She even admitted to the commission of the same by entering a plea of guilty in a
federal court in North Dakota. Subsequently, she was charged for improperly billing
Minnesota clients in a bankruptcy matter.
The referee, after due hearing, concluded that Dvorak violated the Minnesota Rules
of Professional Conduct. Hence, the referee recommended that she be suspended
from the practice of law for a minimum of 6 months. However, the Director of the
Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility urged a suspension of not less than 12
months.
The issue is the appropriate penalty to be imposed.
The Supreme Court of Minnesota considered several mitigating factors, one of which
is Dvoraks substantial pro bono and volunteer work to her community.
Other
mitigating factors included were that Dvorak was not previously subject to discipline
in her 15 years of practice, her substantial personal problem brought about by the
illness and death of her father, her full cooperation in the disciplinary investigation,
and her outstanding reputation for honesty and hard work within the profession.
Moreover, the Court believed that the violations in question were remote and
isolated incidents in an otherwise distinguished legal career.