'

JOHN L. RUNFT (ISB # 1059)

JON M. STEELE (ISB # 1911)
RUNFT & STEELE LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1020 W. Main Street, Suite 400
Boise, Idaho 83702
Phone: (208) 333-8506
Fax: (208) 343-3246
Email: JRunft@runftsteele.com
Attorneys for Respondent
00!\IDUCT BOI\At
IDAHO STATE BAR
JUL 13 2010
BEFORE THE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BOARD
OF THE IDAHO STATE BAR
IDAHO STATE BAR, File No.: FC 10-04
Plaintiff,
vs. ANSWER
BRYAN S. STORER, ISB # 6944
Respondent.
COMES NOW Respondent, Bryan Storer, ISB #6944, by and through his attorney of
record, John L. Runft, and in answer to the Complaint file herein on May 19'h, 2010, admits,
denies and alleges as follows:
1. Respondent denies each and every allegation contained in the Complaint not
specifically admitted herein.
2. Respondent admits the allegations of paragraphs I, 2, and 3 of the Complaint.
ANSWER- Page I of 34
ORIGtNAL
MISTY AND GABRIEL HERNANDEZ
COUNT ONE
3. Respondent submits tbat the background information contained in Respondent's
response to paragraph 33 below should be considered throughout this Answer in his belieftbat it is
relevant to tbe following responses and should be born in mind when measuring his conduct and the
allegations against him under the standards of the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct.
4. Plaintiff admits the allegations set forth in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
Respondent did respond to Mr. Ford's 06-19-09letter and 07-05-09 Motion to Compel via letter on
July 17, 2007 informing him that discovery responses were late because he was still awaiting
signature to the Response from Ms. Hernandez. Respondent stated that the responses would be
delivered once tbe client's signature was obtained. Moreover, Respondent sent Mr. Ford tbree more
faxes dated July 14, 24, and 25, 2007, regarding the responses and then served the responses on July
25,2007.
5. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 1 0 of the Complaint. The
scheduling conflict was for an SLRA evaluation scheduled for the same time as the hearing.
6. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph II of the Complaint.
7. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Complaint. The lack
of any response by Respondent arose from the problems explained above. Admit. These
documents were not entered on any mail log or brought to Respondent's attention upon receipt.
Respondent used (and currently uses) three ring binders to manage files. The copies of papers of
the motion for attorney fees that I found much later did not even have holes punched in them,
indicating that they were not ever put into a binder where I at least could find them upon review of
the file. Jason did not keep a Pleading Index on this file. I was unable to file a response to
something I did not even know I had received.
ANSWER- Page 2 of 34
8. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of the Complaint. Jason
Carroll had left the office a week before this letter was received. Because of his debilitating medical
condition Respondent was unable to keep track of the office communications. Nevertheless,
Respondent mistakenly believed that he would be able to get back on top of the situation relatively
soon. A temporary legal secretary was attempting help out in the mess left by Mr. Carroll, but she
was overwhehned, since, as it turned out Respondent's recovery was not as swift as he had hoped.
There were no entries in the phone logs, no entry in the mail log that the letter was ever received,
documents were not scanned and placed in the binder.
9. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the Complaint. For
reasons stated above, there were no entries in the phone logs, no entry in the mail log that the letter
was ever received, documents were not scam1ed and placed in the binder.
10. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 15 of the Complaint.
11. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of the Complaint. For
reasons stated above, there were no entries in the mail log that the documents ever received,
documents were not scanned and placed in the binder.
12. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the Complaint. For
reasons stated above, there were no entries in the phone logs, no entry in the mail log that the letter
was ever received, documents were not scanned and placed in the binder.
13. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the Complaint. For
reasons stated above, there were no entries in the phone logs, no entry in the mail log that the letter
was ever received, documents were not scanned and placed in the binder. I did not know hearing
was scheduled.
ANSWER- Page 3 of 34
14. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of the Complaint. For
reasons stated above, there were no entries in the phone logs, no entry in the mail log that the letter
was ever received, documents were not scanned and placed in the binder.
15. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the Complaint.
Respondent had hired a new paralegal, Debbie Smith, in December and was working with her as
best he could, to reinstate the filing system and unearth the problems from the files previously
mismanaged by Jason Carroll. For reasons stated above, Respondent had finally seen the Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment and realized he needed more time in order to respond.
16. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of the Complaint. For
reasons stated above, there were no prior entries in the phone logs, no entry in the mail log that the
documents had been received, and none of the documents had been scanned and placed in the
binder. Debbie Smith was methodically sorting through Jason Carroll's messes and made
Respondent aware of the extent of the mismanagement of the files. It became apparent to
Respondent and Debbie Smith that the Hernandez file was the worst example of the mismanaged
files.
17. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of the Complaint.
Debbie was trying to regain control of this case and was able to provide documents to Respondent
regarding this hearing.
18. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 23 of the Complaint.
19. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 24 of the Complaint.
Because of his continuing health issues, Respondent solicited the assistance of other legal counsel to
help him with his cases and participate in his office practice for an indefinite period of time.
Attorney Mark Means responded to an inquiry on the ITLA website. The objective of this plan was
to have another lawyer in the office to cover for Respondent when he was not feeling well until such
ANSWER- Page 4 of 34
time as my health issues abated. During the fall of2007, Respondent's condition had worsened and
he suffered from periods of severe headaches and lack of sleep, which left him severely debilitated.
Respondent and Mark Means filed a notice of association in the Hernandez case as well as on
several other cases. It was clearly understood between Mr. Means and Respondent that Mr. Means
would carry this case forward until Respondent regained his health.
20. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 25 of the Complaint. Around
this time Debbie Smith was gradually getting control of some of the cases. Respondent had also
been trying for some to time to improve his office document scanning system so that he would be
able to see files while at home via internet. During this period Respondent was still contemplating
surgery since his excruciating headaches and tinnitus continued to be debilitating and he was forced
to work out of my home for an extended period of time. During this time the staff was scmming
documents, and Respondent assumed that these documents in the Hernandez case were directed to
Means attention due to his Association in the case.
21. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 26 of the Complaint.
Respondent does not know precisely what happened with regard to this motion for Snnnnary
Judgment. Respondent believes that staff was confused as to whether he or Means should have
been receiving these documents, since we had filed the notice of association. Just a few months
early (mid December, 2007) Means had substituted for Respondent in the Hunter case with the
intent that Respondent would no longer be legal counsel in that case. I mn not sure if staff got
confused on Hernandez and assumed that Means should be receiving these documents.
22. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 27, 28, and 29 of the
Complaint. See Respondent's responses to paragraphs Nos. 25 and 26 of the Complaint.
23. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 30 of the Complaint.
Respondent becaJile aware that he had a major problem with Mark Means when he managed to get
ANSWER- Page 5 of 34
the Hunter dismissed and that Means was unreliable and dishonest. These allegations regarding Mr.
Means will be proven in on-going litigation related to the Hunter case. Respondent immediately
disassociated with Mr. Means. Respondent immediately associated in his practice with attorney
Clinton Evan Miner to accomplish what I had hoped to do with Means. Mr. Miner has proven to be
reliable, honest, and competent. Mr. Miner had no responsibility for any of the problems in the
Hernandez case. Mr. Miner has been handling all of Respondent's litigation and WC files.
Respondent is no longer involved with the litigation end of his practice unless it is to help Mr.
Miner.
24. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 31 and 32 of the Complaint.
25. Respondent denies each of the following specific allegations of the Idaho Rules of
Professional Conduct contained in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint; namely, Idaho Rules of
Professional Conduct 1.1 (Competence); 1.2 (Failure to pursue client objectives); 1.3 Diligence; 1.4
(Communication); 3.4 (d) (Failure to make reasonably diligent efforts to comply with discovery
request): and 8.4(d) Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). Relevant to consideration
of whether Respondent violated the subject rules or was faced with circumstances beyond his
control are the following background facts.
(a) At this time in the summer of2007, Respondent was experiencing the
repercussions of serious health issues, primarily arising from a brain tumor, hemorrhagic blood
mass, and related treatment (including radiation), medical evidence of which condition and
treatment will be provided. Respondent's medical condition and the unanticipated repercussions
created intra-office difficulties which, inter alia interfered with Respondent's ability to oversee the
functioning of his office staff, which included obtaining signatures of clients to responses to
discovery. These problems have long since been remedied and procedures put in place to
compensate and overcome any difficulties arising from Respondent's medical condition.
ANSWER- Page 6 of 34
(b) Respondent's office staff at that time consisted of Matt Peterson and Jason
Carroll, who, as Respondent later discovered, did not document all communications despite his
repeatedly asking them to do so. Respondent recalls that Matt and/or Jason had attempted to get
Ms. Hernandez to come in to sign the discovery responses, but were unable to accomplish this for
some unknown, undocumented reason. At this time, Respondent was also having problems with
Matt and Jason (mostly Jason) following office procedures, such as providing Respondent with
copies of mail, communication updates (phone calls and written communications), and maintaining
a mail log.
(c) Jason Carroll was the paralegal at that time. He is tl1e one who was responsible
for managing this file. There are no phone entries from him anywhere in the computer despite him
being the person responsible for the communications. There are no phone entries in Gabriel
Hernandez's file from March 13, 2006 until November 26, 2007. There were no phone entries in
Misty Hernandez's file from August 18, 2006 until January 11, 2008. Jason worked at Respondent's
office for a little over one year, from July 17, 2006 until September 28, 2007. The relationship with
Jason began to seriously deteriorate as Respondent admonished and criticized Jason for his job
perfonnance. Because of his dependency arising from the unanticipated onset of repercussions
from his medical condition, Respondent was initially reluctant to fire Jason until Respondent could
take measures to stabilize his medical condition and practice. After leaving Respondent's office,
Jason filed an extremely hostile Bar complaint in 2008, which was dismissed in its entirety. Jason's
complaint itself demonstrated his own calumny. He maintained that Respondent did not return
some clients phone calls, but the only notations of those calls were his handwritten notes to himself
that he never entered in the computer or otherwise relayed to me. He presented the bar his
handwritten notes as "evidence" of the client phone calls despite the computer being devoid any
entries from him or his ever giving Respondent any of his hand written notations. There are no
ANSWER- Page 7 of 34
phone or mail entries from him in this file even though he was the only paralegal in the office and
was responsible for maintaining this file.
(d) Respondent realized that it was particularly imperative for hum to be able to rely
upon staff to function during this period of disability. Respondent had wanted to fire Jason but did
not feel that he could do so when hw was having a hard time with debilitating exhaustion and
keeping up physically, even with his wife's help. The prospect of having to hire and train new staff
was more than he could manage in his debilitated condition. Moreover, until toward the end of
Jason's tenure, Respondent was unaware of the extent of Jason's failure to perform his duties and
the lack of record keeping detail. It was difficult to ascertain how much damage Jason was doing
since Respondent did not know how many phone calls he was not getting or how much
correspondence he was not seeing. In summary, under conditions of emergency and psychological
and physical disability, Respondent was relying on staff to be honest and reliable.
During relevant times referenced in this Complaint, Respondent was rendered incapacitated
as defined under Rule 515 of the Rules or Review of Professional Conduct both physically and
emotionally to such an extent that he was unable sufficiently control his law practice with the result
that the events admitted herein above occurred. At no time did Respondent intentionally act to
create the events complained of, or act with moral turpitude, or intentionally misrepresent any facts.
All events complained of arose from inaction on the part of Respondent caused by his temporary
disability. The incapacity caused by his disability has abated and Respondent has taken responsible
steps to establish procedures in his law practice and law office administration, including document
control and dissemination to prevent any reoccurrence of the conditions that led to this complaint.
Primary in said procedures established is the association with another lawyer who will share
management of the law practice and be primarily responsible for handling all matters oflitigation
ANSWER- Page 8 of 34
and who will be in a position to step in to maters handled by Respondent in the event of any
reoccurring incapacity. .
Respondent hereby petitions the bar for an evaluation under Rule 515 (c) to determine past
and I or present incapacity to practice law and to establish any limitations, if any, in that regard.
LISA HUNTER
COUNT TWO
1. Respondent reiterates the averments set forth hereinabove in paragraph 4 of this
Answer and admits or denies the allegations contained in the following paragraphs of Count Two of
the Complaint as follows: .
2. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 34.
3. Regarding the allegations set forth in paragraph 35, Respondent admits that the
demand was sent to Geico and denies that that Hunter was not informed of this. Respondent avers
that Hunter had already informed him on several occasions of her ongoing difficult financial
situation and insisted that the demand be sent as soon as possible.
4. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 36.
5. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 3 7.
6. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 38.
7. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 39. I spoke to Hunter on
March 10, 2006 as well as March 14, 2006 regarding these interactions with Geico.
8. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 40. Hunter was told on
March 10, 2006 that the circumstances of her claim, including her fall in the bathtub, require the
filing of the lawsuit. This was explained to her several times again prior to the filing of the lawsuit.
ANSWER- Page 9 of 34
She was well informed of the filing. She was also informed regarding defendant being served prior
to that occurring.
9. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 41
10. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 42.
11. Regarding the allegations set forth in paragraph 43, Respondent admits forwarding
documents to PSF however, and pursuant it was done pursuant to Hunter's request since PSF would
not process the request without the documents.
12. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 44.
13. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 45.
14. With regard to the allegations set forth in par graph 46, Respondent admits only that
discovery responses were submitted on January 19, 2007 and that Mr. Fuhrman filed a Motion to
Compel. Respondent denies that the Motion was justified.
15. Respondent lacks sufficient information to answer the allegations contained in
paragraph 47 regarding the mail to Matt Peterson. Respondent denies that Hunter did not know suit
had been filed since she was told multiple times of the filing prior to its occurrence as well as being
told on October 17, 2006 that Respondents were attempting to serve defendant.
16. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 48.
17. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 49.
18. Admit. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 50.
19. Regarding the allegations set forth in paragraph 51, Respondent admits that
Fuhrman sent a letter dated July 10,2007. Because oflack of information as to the remaining
allegations, Respondent denies same, since Mr. Means has not returned the file with relevant
documents and cotrnnunications.
20. Admit Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 52.
ANSWER- Page 10 of 34
21. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 53. Respondent avers that
he moved his office during the last week of July 2007. Forwarding orders were submitted on
several occasions, yet Respondent still did not receive any mail for several weeks. A postal worker
later admitted to having incorrectly entered the forwarding order resulting in mail not being
delivered for an extended period of time. Respondent eventually received several bins of mail on
one day that had been accumulating for weeks.
22. Regarding the allegations contained in paragraph 54, for lack of sufficient
information Respondent denies said allegations. Mr. Means has not returned the file with relevant
documents and communications.
23. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 55. Respondent avers
that the office was moved during the last week of July, 2006. Respondent believes the Notice of
Change of Address was filed the first week of August, 2007.
24. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 56, except that
Respondent does not sufficient infonnation to know whether there was no response, and therefore
denies same, since Mr. Means has not returned the original file with relevant documents and
communications.
25. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 57.
26. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 58, except that
Respondent denies the remaining allegation for lack of sufficient infonnation, because Mr. Means
has not returned the file with relevant documents and communications.
27. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 59.
28. Regarding the allegations contained in paragraph 60, because of lack of sufficient
information Respondent denies said allegations. Mr. Means has not returned the file with relevant
documents and communications.
ANSWER- Page 11 of 34
29. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 61, 62, 63, 64, and 65.
30. Respondent admits only that Mr. Fuhrman filed the motions as alleged in paragraph
66, and denies the remaining allegations because Respondent does not sufficient information to
form a belief regarding same, and therefore denies same, since Mr. Means has not returned the
original file with relevant documents and communications.
31. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 67, 68, 69, and 70.
32. Respondent denies any and all allegations, if any, set forth in paragraph 71 for lack
of sufficient knowledge to answer same.
33. Regarding the allegations set forth in paragraph 72, Respondent admits only that
Mr. Fuhrman filed the motions.
34. Regarding the allegations set forth in paragraph 73, Respondent admits only that he
stated at the hearing that the memorandum and affidavit were inaccurate, Respondent denies that
they were in fact inaccurate.
35. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 74, 75, and 76.
36. Regarding the allegations set forth in paragraph 77, Respondent admits only that the
Substitution of Counsel was executed. Respondent denies Hunter was unaware of this, since
Respondent and Mr. Means met with Hunter on December 10, 2007, and discussed the substitution
of counsel. Respondent avers that Mr. Means referred to her in nwnerous documents as "my
client." Mr. Means emailed Alan Morton stating the contents of his fee agreement with Bruner was
the same as the fee agreement that Respondent previously had with her. Means submitted
additional documents to the Court confirming he was the attorney of record.
37. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 78.
38. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 79. Respondent avers that
the basis for the substitution was, and remained, as stated in this complaint. Hunter was already
ANSWER- Page 12 of 34
aware of Respondent's prior Motion to Withdraw due to her non-compliance with discovery
responses and failure to timely produce documents that she had promised to provide to Respondent.
39. Respondent lacks infonnation to form an opinion as to the truth of the allegations set
forth in paragraph 80 and therefore denies same, since Mr. Means has not returned the file with
relevant documents and connnunications.
40. Respondent lacks information to form an opinion as to the truth of the allegations set
forth in paragraph 81, since he did not participate in the interactions referred to.
41. Respondent lacks information to form an opinion as to the truth of the allegations set
forth in paragraph 82 and therefore denies same, since Mr. Means has not returned the file with
relevant documents and connnunications.
42. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 83. Respondent avers that
said documents were submitted to Mark Means, no to Respondent.
43. Respondent caunot recall endorsing any check as alleged in paragraph 84, and lacks
information to form an opinion as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 84, and
therefore he denies same.
44. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 85 and 86. Respondent
avers that said documents were submitted to Mark Means, not to Respondent.
45. With regard to the allegations set forth in paragraph 87, Respondent admits only that
Mr. Means filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Respondent avers that he was not asked to provide
an affidavit at the time the motion was filed. It was not until over a month later that Mr. Means
requested from Respondent an affidavit clarifYing the prior interactions between Mr. Fuhrman,
myself, and the Court.
46. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 88 and 89.
ANSWER- Page 13 of 34
47. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 90. Respondent avers that
he did not attend the hearing, that he never saw the Memorandum decision, that he did not even
know of its existence, and that he did not know that the hearing had even occurred, since Mr. Means
had never cmrununicated any of this infonnation, or discuss any aspect of this hearing with him.
Respondent further avers that it was his understanding that Mr. Means was continuing to work on
the case, that he was in communication with Hunter since the Substitution of Counsel had been
filed, and that he was no longer receiving documents on the case. Mr. Means was also
communicating with Alan Morton and apparently receiving advice from him as to how to proceed.
Respondent did not have access to the post office box in Caldwell that Mr. Means used for his
mailing so Respondent had no knowledge of what further occurred with this case. Respondent does
not believe Mr. Mean's story as to why Mr. Means did not attend the February 14'\ 2008 hearing.
48. Respondent lacks infonnation to form an opinion as to the truth of the allegations set
forth in paragraph 91 and therefore denies same, since my e-mail settings screen out unknown e-
mail sources.
49. Regarding the allegations contained in paragraph 92, because of lack of sufficient
information Respondent denies said allegations, since Mr. Means has not returned the file with
relevant documents and communications.
50. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 93.
Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 94 for the same reasons as set forth
hereinabove in Respondent's answer to paragraph 33 of the Complaint . Respondent hereby
petitions the bar for an evaluation under Rule 515 (c) to determine past and I or present incapacity
to practice law and to establish any limitations, if any, in that regard.
ANSWER- Page 14 of 34
TAMMI BARTH-BILBREY
COUNT THREE
51. Respondent reiterates the averments set forth hereinabove in paragraph 4 of this
Answer and admits or denies the allegations contained in the following paragraphs of Count Three
of the Complaint as follows: .
52. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 95, 96, and 97, and with
regard to paragraph 97 avers as follows: The pre-suit offer of judgment was $20,000.00.
Respondent did not trust himself to conduct the trial by himself due to his health condition, so I
requested that Brett Fox assist with the trial. The Client, Ms. Bilbrey, knew that Fox was
associating on the case. Client had met with Fox on several occasions pre-trial and was familiar
with him. Client and Respondent had a face to face discussion regarding fees for Fox, at which time
she inquired if she would have to pay full fees to both Fox and Respondent. Respondent
thoroughly explained to her that Fox would be paid out of the fees that Respondent would otherwise
have been paid resulting in no net change to her. Respondent made it clear that Fox's involvement
would cost Respondent, not her. She approved this arrangement. Fox and Respondent each did
about half the trial work.
53. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 98.
54. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 99. In this regard,
Respondent avers as follows: The check and Satisfaction of Judgment was received on August 22,
2006. Respondent was unsure why the check was not deposited until September 28, 2006. This is
so long ago that Respondent is at a disadvantage since it is impossible to remember every detail of a
case from 4-5 years ago. The check may have been held onto by Matt or Jason since the amount
was different than the jury verdict due to collateral source reduction that they may not have been
aware of and he assumed that the check was short and that cashing it would preclude any argument
ANSWER- Page IS of 34
over receiving the correct amount. Staff could have also held the check assuming that negotiation of
the check would result in accepting it as payment in full and waiver of costs. Since this was the
very first trial I did where a Plaintiff's verdict was received, there were likely several such concerns
regarding cashing the check as noted above, however, I do not recall the specific reason aside from
likely concern of waiving costs by cashing the check or accuracy of the amount.
The normal check receipt process was as such- once a check was received, staff would
calculate the disbursement on a spread sheet and give me both the check and a copy of the spread
sheet. Due to the bank putting a "hold" on out of state checks, we would try to disburse 2 weeks
after the check was deposited and we verified the check did not bounce.
55. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 100.
56. Respondent does not have sufficient information to either admit or deny the
allegations contained in paragraph I 01, therefore denies same. Respondent avers, however, as
follows: Respondent did not negotiate the check and does not know what happened to it. I do not
believe it is correct that costs were not mentioned to client. I had discussed her probable portion of
the verdict on October 2, 2006. Although I did not write down every detail of the conversation, it is
highly unlikely that this was not part of the discussion.
57. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 102. In this regard,
Respondent avers as follows: This check was given to client approximately 2 weeks after the check
was deposited which was within a reasonable time of depositing the check. Respondent recalls that
there was an issue over some of the treatment provider charges, interest charges, subrogation, and
general concern over accuracy. It would have been Respondent's preference to not disburse until
staff had verified all costs and treatment charges, subrogation, and costs, however, staff was
complaining that client was demanding payment immediately. Respondent feared paying client
ANSWER- Page 16 of34
prior to providers and subrogation without knowing for sure what those obligations would be. The
subrogation was not reduced until October 3, 2006.
58. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 103.
59. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 104 only as to the checks
sent to Ms. Bilbrey. Moreover, Respondent avers as follows: Ms. Bilbrey was informed of the
anticipated net to her on October 2, 2006 (between $21,000.00 and $24,000.00). However, there
were still ongoing attempts to negotiate the health insurance subrogation that were not completed
until October 3, 2006. I attempted to call client 3 times on October 3, 2006 to discuss disbursement
issues with her.
60. Respondent admit the disbursement alleged in paragraph 105, but does not have
sufficient infonnation to either admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 105,
therefore denies same. Respondent cannot admit or deny Bilbrey contacting his office in early
November 2006 regarding an itemized statement or that someone told her that it was in the mail
since there are no notations in the mail log.
61. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 106. Respondent avers as
follows: The jury award was adjusted by the Court pursuant to the "collateral source" doctrine. The
award was reduced post-trial by the contractual adjustments made by the health care providers. This
was explained to Bilbray while still in the Courtroom after the trial since it was anticipated that this
would happen and was unavoidable. Bilbrey was not told by Respondent to not dispute the matter
because the bookkeeper, Michele Storer, was ill.
62. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 107, 108, 109,110, and
Ill (although it was Allstate Insurance not Allied).
63. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 112. In this regard,
Respondent avers that he notified Bar Counsel by fax of the second check on October 3, 2007, and
ANSWER- Page 17 of34
in his cover letter, Respondent he sought guidance regarding disbursement. Respondent was
specifically trying to avoid any further problems or miscommunication with client or Bar counsel.
He did not know whether he should contact the client directly or forward a check to Bar Counsel.
Respondent never receive a response from bar counsel.
64. Regarding the allegations contained in paragraphs 113, Respondent admits only that
he negotiated the check and that he paid Tammy nothing, since he did not owe her anything and he
had not received any guidance from the bar as to how best to resolve this matter. Moreover,
Respondent could not indefinitely hold onto the check or it would be stale dated.
65. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 114 for the same reasons
as set forth hereinabove in Respondent's answer to paragraph 33 of the Complaint . Respondent
hereby petitions the bar for an evaluation under Rule 515 (c) to determine past and I or present
incapacity to practice law and to establish any limitations, if any, in that regard. In addition with
regard to the charges under the specific Rule against Respondent's conduct described in paragraphs
95 through 113, Respondent alleges as follows:
1.1 -Competence and 1.3 Diligence- Deny. This was Respondent's first real trial and was figuring
out the post trial process and accounting for the first time. While in hindsight, matters could have
preceded more efficiently, Respondent and Mr. obtained a jury verdict over 4 times the offer of
judgment. There was less than $600.00 of car damage. This is not an indication of a lack of
competence.
1.4 - Communication - Deny. There was frequent communications between Respondent and client
prior and after the trial. Moreover, there was also communication between my staff and client,
although the staff at that time did not document any phone calls.
1.5( c) Contingent Fee Agreement - Deny .There was absolutely a written fee agreement with client.
All client files have and always have had fee agreements. Respondent never has had and does not
ANSWER- Page 18 of 34
have any files that do not have this. We do not do anything on a case without a fee agreement,
including this case. I took the fee agreement out of the client binder and had it in my hand when I
was preparing an initial response to the Bar complaint. The Client knows full well that we had a
fee agreement. By the tenns of the fee agreement, the client was paid in full. Her issue with the Bar
was the % of fees, not the existence of the fee agreement. Respondent even reviewed the fee
agreement with her relative to paying Fox from our fees wherein it stated that we had authorization
to associate other attorneys.
1.1 Competence. Deny. Respondent competently obtained the assistance of a co-counsel try this
case before a jury which was competently done and an award obtained. The award was four times
the offer of judgment. There was less than $600 of vehicle damage. Respondent then pursued the
issues of subrogation in a professional manner with good results for the client.
1.3 Diligence. Deny. As stated above, Respondent and co-counsel diligently pursued his matter to a
jury verdict and obtained a very favorable result. Then Respondent followed up attending to the
issues of post trial distribution claims, such as subrogation, and payment of client.
1,4 Communication. Deny. There was frequent and adequate communication between Respondent
and staff with the client both before and after trial.
1.5 (c) Contingent Fee Agreement Deny. Respondent had definitely executed a written fee
agreement with client in this matter. All matters in this law finn commence with a written fee
agreement. The client knows full well that we had a written fee agreement. Her issue before bar is
a matter of percentage of fees, not the existence of a fee agreement. Respondent even reviewed
with the client specifically with reference to attomey Fox participating in the trial of this matter and
showed her the provision authorizing the association of other attomeys ..
ANSWER- Page 19 of 34
1.15( d) Failure to distribute undisputed funds. Deny. Respondent's accounting showed that Client
owed Respondent's finn $1,773.72. In an effort to resolve the matter, Respondent requested bar
counsel's guidance on how to handle the second check we received. Bar counsel never responded.
8.4(c) Misrepresentation. Deny. Respondent provided excellent representation. obtained a good
result in a timely fashion, provided accounting, and paid client in full.
CANDY FRAZEE
COUNT FOUR
66. Respondent reiterates the averments set forth hereinabove in paragraph 4 of this
Answer and admits or denies the allegations contained in the following paragraphs of Count Four
of the Complaint as follows: .
67. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 115.
68. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 116, and avers as follows:
This was a form letter that Respondent has clients come by the office and sign. This letter is
accurate except in this case the subrogation paragraph was not corrected that stated: "Fanners
was paid ... ". In fact the insurance company had not yet been paid. This error inadvertently was
overlooked. This paragraph in this fonn letter is the "default" situation and is usually correct,
since it is rare that the subrogation lingers on like this. It is to be modified to fit the situation of a
still to be addressed subrogation. However, to the client's advantage Respondent did write off
all the costs although there was absolutely no obligation or need for Respondent to do so.
69. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 117 In this regard,
Respondent avers that Ms. Frazee "executed the settlement letter ... "indicates she acknowledged
ANSWER Page 20 of 34
Dr. Radnovich's outstanding charges. Therefore, her later complaint that these charges were
paid in her behalf contradicts this acknowledgement.
70. Respondent does not have sufficient information to either admit or deny the subject
conversation between Frazee and Dr. Radnovich's office, since he was not a participant in that
interaction, and, therefore, he denies the allegations in paragraph 118. Respondent further avers that
on May 28, 2008, Dr. Radnovich's staff (Patty) specifically verified the balance owing for charges
relating to the collision and payment was made to his office accordingly ($1, 138.00). There was
never any lab work done or included in the charges or records presented to Respondent by Dr.
Radnovich's office. Respondent previously discussed the demand with Frazee on April29, 2008,
and explained that it would be an "IC 12-120(4) demand" and, as is Respondent's customary
practice, he reviewed the providers and expenses to make sure that no providers/treatment expenses
were left out. Frazee knew the amount of Dr. Radnovich's treatment charges were at that time that
would be included in the demand and never disputed that they were related to the collision. There
was never any comment from Frazee that these were for "lab work." None of the bills included in
the demand were for "lab work" and none of the treatment expenses paid out of the settlement funds
to Dr. Radnovich were for "lab work." To date, Respondent has never seen anything from Dr.
Radnovich's office regarding "lab work" for Frazee since none of the records/bills showed that.
Respondent's office received the check back from Dr. Radnovich's office on July 7, 2008 due to
their having received a partial payment from another source after Respondent had provided them
with the check for $1,138.00. However, after the check was returned to Respondent's office, Dr.
Radnovich's office again claimed that there was still an outstanding balance owing resulting in a
dispute over what the balance actually was. Dr. Radnovich gave Respondent back the check but
informed Respondent that Radnovich 's office was switching to a new billing system and that
there was still a substantial balance. Dr. Radnovich and his staff told Respondent that they could
ANSWER- Page 21 of 34
not confirm the balance at that time until they got their billing system figured out. Respondent
was told that they had no idea what the balance was so Respondent reasonably assumed it could
just as well be for more than the original amount as it could be for less than the original amount.
Since Dr. Radnovich could not properly estimate the amount, Respondent requested them to give
the check back until they could figure out what the correct balance was. The check was remitted
and Respondent voided the check assuming it should not take long for Dr. Radnovich's office to
verify the balance. Respondent attempted on several occasions thereafter to verify what the
actual balance was to no avail. Respondent's strategy was, if the balance was higher than the
original amount given to Respondent, Dr. Radnovich would have to write it off. If it was less
than the original amount, then the client would receive the difference. If it was the same amount,
then the same amount would be paid to Dr. Radnovich. Regardless, I believed it to be my ethical
responsibility to hold the amount in trust until Dr. Radnovich could figure out their billing.
Contrary to the allegations of the Bar complaint, Frazee was informed of this on July 10, 2008 as
well as other times after that until the billing issue with Dr. Radnovich's office was resolved. I was
obligated to hold the disputed funds in the trust account until Dr. Radnovich's office could provide
me with an accurate balance. It was not until August 28, 2008 that Dr. Radnovich's office informed
me that the final balance owing was $31 0.15. A check for the difference was provided to Frazee on
that same day and confinned with a letter ..
71. Respondent does not have sufficient information to either admit or deny the subject
conversation between Frazee and Dr. Radnovich's office, since he was not a participant in that
conversation, and, therefore, he denies the allegations in paragraph 119. In this regard, Respondent
avers that he had already contacted Dr. Radnovich's office regarding the balance on August 28,
2008 and advised told them that Respondent needed a balance regardless of the status of their
billing system and that there would not be any additional payments after that day regardless of
ANSWER- Page 22 of 34
whether they came up with a higher amount later. I was told by Dr. Radnovich's staff that there
was a balance of$172.15. Respondent was given an additional balance of $138.00 later that day.
Accordingly, Respondent issued payment for those balances (total $31 0.15) to Dr. Radnovich on
August 28, 2008 as well as a check to client on August 29, 2008 for the difference between that
and the balance I was given in June. Frazee was informed of that.
72. Respondent does not have sufficient information to either admit or deny the subject
conversation between Frazee and Dr. Radnovich's office, since he was not a participant in that
conversation, and, therefore, he denies the allegations in paragraph 120. Respondent ascertained,
however from Dr. Radnovich's office that Frazee was told by Dr. Radnovich's office on August 29,
2008 that there was a "zero balance," because Respondent's office had already paid the balance the
day before based on Dr. Radnovich's office representation that $310.15 was the accurate balance.
There was no payment to him "lab work" A letter was faxed to client on August 29, 2008,
explaining the above circumstances and that Respondent was initially given inaccurate
information by Dr. Dr. Radnovich's office when I was given the original balance, but I still had an
obligation to cover outstanding balances. The check was mailed to client the same day. Ms
Frazee was not truthful about a charge for "lab work," since there was no lab work charges on
the billing statements Respondent received. This, as well as the actual balance, was later
confinned by Dr. Dr. Radnovich's office in writing- there never were any "lab charges.".
73. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 121.
74. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 122. Regarding these
allegations, Respondent avers as follows: These issues were discussed with Frazee within the week
the check was returned to Respondent's office by Dr. Radnovich (July 10, 2008) and numerous
times thereafter. There was no "overpayment" made to Dr. Radnovich by Respondent's office since
the original balance paid ($1,138.00) was supported by Dr. Radnovich's office staff's
ANSWER Page 23 of 34
representations. There was an ongoing dispute after the check was returned, since Dr. Radnovich
never stated the check was returned because there was no balance, but rather that the original
balance was reduced form the amount he originally stated. That corrected balance was not given to
Respondent until August 28, 2008.
75. Respondent does not have sufficient information to either admit or deny the subject
communications between Frazee and Fanners Insurance Co., since he was not a participant in that
conversation, and, therefore, he denies the allegations in paragraph 123. However, Respondent
does deny that he failed to respond to the Fanners' communications. Farmers received a letter of
representation from Respondent on or about October 17, 2007. Respondent eventually settled the
liability claim with the intention of Frazee paying the subrogation claim to the extent that she was
contractually obligated to pay per Wensman. Despite this, Farmers demanded the entire the entire
subrogation when Respondent spoke to the adjustor on May 16, 2008. Respondent disagreed with
Farmers position and stated such resulting in a "stale mate." The Farmers adjustor was belligerent
throughout these communication. Despite her having a letter of representation from
Respondent's office, she persistently called the client in order to aggravate the subrogation issue
and misrepresent our communications. The very letter that client received from Fanners on
August 30, 2008 validates Respondent's position regarding the subrogation. Farmers was still
demanding the entire subrogation without reduction per Wensman, despite Respondent's prior
communications with them. It would have been far easier to just go ahead and pay the entire
subrogation Fanners at that time, but Respondent felt obligated to act in the best interests of
client which meant that Respondent needed to dispute the subrogation claim. Respondent had
already been paid, so there was absolutely no benefit for Respondent to take his time and go
through the trouble to do this. Client also advised Respondent that the Fanners adjustor told her
they never received a rep letter from Respondent. This was calumny at its worst, since a rep
ANSWER- Page 24 of 34
letter had been faxed to Farmers on October 16, 2007. The adjustor then utilized this fabrication
to justify her calling client directly.
76. Respondent admits receiving the fax from Ms. Frazee as alleged in paragraph 124,
but cannot admit or deny anything regarding her intent or state of mind. Regarding these
allegations, Respondent states as follows: Fanners had not yet received payment since they had not
agreed to the Wimsman reduction that it felt Frazee was entitled to. As stated in # 116 above,
Respondent's staff person (Kim Hall) had mistakenly entered the subrogation amount on the
June 25, 2008 settlement letter as having been paid since the form requires accounting of all
receipts, costs, and disbursements. The staff person entered the subrogation amounts in the
fonnat that it is usually entered without noting that the liability carrier had not yet released the
disputed subrogation amount to either party. The sheet should have reflected this, but the staff
person incorrectly assumed that the subrogation had already been paid directly to Fanners.
(Since that time, Respondent has modified the settlement letter so the default position assumes
that there is a disputed subrogation on every claim. Respondent now must to intentionally
delete the disputed subrogation language rather than add it.) Fanners knew that Respondent had
not received the disputed subrogation amount since they had been in communication with Allied
and had also attempted to get Allied to send the money directly to them.
77. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 125. ln this respect,
Respondent avers as follows: Fanners wanted Respondent to fax them a letter after this phone
conversation agreeing that they could still collect the entire subrogation amount, but Respondent
did not agree to this since the entire conversation was vague and the adjustor did not, make any
absolute promises as to what Fanners was agreeing to do once they received the payment.
Respondent felt that the adjustor was not committing to Wensman fees and was still attempting
to gain control over the entire subrogation.
ANSWER- Page 25 of 34
78. Respondent denies the allegations ofFanner's agent Jo Bayliss in paragraph 126
and avers in this regard as follows: After all the torturous interaction with Farmers over the course
of nearly six months, Fanners October 3, 2008letter is the first time they conceded Wensman fees to
their insured. Whereas Respondent is not sure specifically what Farmers claims Respondent
allegedly "promised" to fax, to Farmers, Respondent certainly did not promise to agree to their
terms or "promise" them anything. As between Farmers and Respondent, it was well known
what was involved, what the amount was, and what the dispute was over it was simple. On
October 1, 2008 Farmers wanted Respondent to agree that the entire subrogation amount could
be paid to Fanners for them to (maybe) disburse and she wanted something in writing, if such
was the case. Respondent did not agree to those tenns in the telephone conversation with her on
October 1, 2008 so there was no follow up writing. Respondent cannot imagine what alleged
"promise" was made, since there was nothing more to give Fanners. The October 3, 2008 letter
also does not otherwise state what the content of this communication from Respondent was
supposed to be. In Fanners letter dated October 3, 2008, they requested a signature if the tenns
were agreed to, however Respondent had already disagreed with these terms on October 1,
2008. The dispute was never over the issue of who was entitled to the money from the
subrogation reduction since this was clearly entirely the client's. That was never part of the
discussion. The dispute was always regarding Farmers refusal to acknowledge any Wensman
fees.
79. Respondent admits that the Allied check was received on October 17, 2008, as
alleged in paragraph 127. In this respect Respondent avers and states as follows: "The check was
deposited on November 25, 2008. In am not sure why the delay in the deposit except that I was
in Germany for an extended period of time (September/October- I will verify dates) and then my
"surrogate" father died on October 26, 2008 (my dad was gone much of the time when I was in
ANSWER- Page 26 of 34
Berlin he was often in the east block doing whatever his group did over there. He asked this
family friend to watch over me during his frequent absences and he was like a father to me)."
80. Respondent admits as alleged in paragraph 128 only that the letter was
received from Farmers. In this respect Respondent avers as follows: This Farmers letter was sent
despite the fact that a rep letter was sent to Farmers a year earlier on October 16, 2007 and they
refused to reduce the subrogation for over a year. The delay in the subrogation dispute resolution
was entirely due to Farmers not agreeing to Wensman reduction until a year later- October 3,
2008 and then their calculations were incorrect. This delay caught Respondent out of the
Country attending to personal matters as described above paragraph 127, which resulted on a
relatively short subsequent delay.
81. Respondent admits that said letter as described in paragraph 129 was
received. The check was received at Respondent's office on the afternoon of October 17, 2008.
Farmers mailed a letter, presumably on October 22, 2008 (logically this letter would have been
drafted in the am of October 22, 2008 to get in that days mail. Farmers threatened Respondent
with a Bar complaint ifhe did not respond by October 27,2008. This impact of this overly
aggressive conduct of Farmer's is described by Respondent as follows: "Whenever I make a
deposit, I do it on my way home from the office. Even if I had deposited in on the following
business day (Monday, October 20, 2008), it would have been after 5pm on my way home. It
would have been posted at my bank the following day. This process of a check clearing (had it
been deposited on October 20, 2008 after 5 pm) would not have allowed Allied or Farmers to
even know whether or not it was deposited the morning of October 22, 2008. Farmers letter of
October 22, 2008 is a good indication of an over-aggressive adjustor simply looking for a fight
after she delayed resolution of the subrogation for nearly a year by not agreeing to the
appropriate Wensman fees. Consider this- Farmers delays resolution of the subro for a year, and
ANSWER- Page 27 of 34
then threatens me with a bar complaint 1.5 days after the earliest I could have deposited the
check. There is something very seriously wrong about this pattern of behavior by Bayliss at
Farmers and this pattern goes all the way to at least March, 2008. The fact that she disregarded
the rep letter and lied to the client is a further indication of this. She aggressively misrepresented
facts to client to perpetuate her incorrect position regarding the subrogation. I was notified
about my friends death on the day Farmers was demanding a response, October 27, 2008. The
funeral was the next week."
82. Respondent admits the allegations set forth in paragraph I 30. In this respect,
Respondent avers as follows: Much of the manipulation by Farmers is the misperception of
Respondent's not responding to their phone calls when it was really more specifically my not
responding to Farmers every demand to pay the full subrogation and every phone call during
which Bayliss continuously refused to agree to a Wensman reduction. Respondent describes this
interplay with Farmers as follows: "Bayliss certainly called my office more often thau I called
her; however, her communications until early October, 2008 were restatements of her refusal to
reduce the subrogation. Moreover as described above, I was still working on severe health issues
during this time. I simply could not call Farmers back every time she called repeatedly stating
they still had not changed their position, just so I could confirm that I still disagreed with their
position regarding full subrogation. It was not until the letter from Farmers received on October
16, 2008 that they appeared to agree with the reduction. I feel that much of Bayliss's
disproportionate aggression towards me was that it was retaliatory in nature, because I had not
rolled over aud agreed to Farmer's full subrogation. The threat of a bar complaint was how she
was venting her frustration- not because of the delay that was in fact at her feet - but rather for
the fact she did not get her way in this matter.".
ANSWER- Page 28 of 34
83. Respondent admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 131. As stated above,
Respondent was out of the country for an extended period ofthne and then returned only to have to
leave the state for a funeral.
84. Respondent admits only that the 11-17-08letter was received and denies the
remainder of the allegations in paragraph 132. Respondent avers Frazee did receive a response
regarding her inquires. Debbie smith responded to Frazee's letter the next day with a full
description of the subrogation dispute. Likewise, there was no failure on Respondent's part to
advise Allied that the release of funds directly to Farmers would have defeated Respondent's
attempt to obtain a subrogation reduction for Frazee. The issue of the disbursement being
"complete" is explained in 116. Frazee knew of the ongoing dispute since both Farmers and my
staff were communicating with her. .
85. Respondent admits that Debbie Smith faxed Frazee said letter on November 18,
2008, as described in paragraph 133 ..
86. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 134, except Respondent
denies the allegation regarding Fraszee's contact with Bayliss, because Respondent lack
information sufficient admit or deny that Frazee contacted Farmers.
87. Respondent does not have sufficient infom1ation to either admit or deny the
allegations contained in paragraph 135 that Farmers sent Frazee said letter.
88. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 136. In this respect,
Respondent avers as follows: The first check was issued on December 1, 2008. Once Respondent
was notified that this was not received (January 28, 2009), a check was re-issued the same day to
Farmers. Respondent did not trust that Bayliss, after all her manipulations, would finally accept
the reduced subrogation without her raising some other issue. Client was infonned she would
get her balance once Respondent knew Fanners cashed the check.
ANSWER- Page 29 of 34
89. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 13 7 ..
90. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 138.
91. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 139, as follows:
Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 139 for the same reasons as set forth
hereinabove in Respondent's answer to paragraph 33 of the Complaint. Respondent hereby
petitions the bar for an evaluation under Rule 515 (c) to determine past and I or present incapacity
to practice law and to establish any limitations, if any, in that regard. . In addition with regard to the
charges under the specific Rule against Respondent's conduct described in paragraphs 115 through
13 8, Respondent alleges as follows:
1.2 Failure to pursue client objectives: The opposite of this is true. Respondent settled claim per
client agreement. Respondent paid provider balances once the final accounting was complete and
the final amounts disclosed. Client misrepresented the nature of the medical services. After she
signed the settlement letter, she falsely claimed the charges were for lab work unrelated to the
car collision in an attempt to avoid paying for those services out of the settlement proceeds.
1.3 Diligence: It was in fact Respondent's diligence and persistence that obtained the
subrogation reduction from Fanners to the benefit of the Client, as described above. Respondent
did the best he could do regarding the finalization of the subrogation reduction in
October/November 2008 between being out of the country and gone for a funeral during the
relevant time period. The Respondent's delays were minor, particularly when compared to the
year long delay by Farmers. There was nothing Respondent could do regarding the Dr.
Radnovich check. Respondent paid the balance to the client as per her agreement when she
signed the settlement agreement letter. Respondent received the check back on July I 0, 2008.
Dr. Radnovich's office did not give Respondent the correct balance until Augnst 28, 2008 and
Respondent paid corrected balance to Dr. Radanovich same day and balance to client
ANSWER- Page 30 of 34
immediately thereafter. First client lied about the nature of Dr. R's services and then
Respondent pursued a hotly debated subrogation reduction for client that only she benefited from
and this resulted in a bar complaint against Respondent. Respondent strongly believe that, if
client thinks I "did not pursue her objectives," then she MUST return the money to Farmers that
represents the subro reduction that only she benefited from and that she is now complaining
about. This is imperative since if obtaining this subro reduction was "not pursuing her
objectives," then the converse must be true- that not attempting to obtain the subro reduction
would meet her objectives. She should give the money back then. It is inappropriate that the
client should be allowed to misrepresent about the medical services, complain about the
subrogation reduction efforts that Respondent was not even obligated to undertake, and then
obtain the benefit of his diligence, and then finish this all with a bar complaint against
Respondent.
1.4 Communication:
Respondent did not collapse to Farmers demands to pay full subrogation. If Respondent's
failure to communicate is defined by his failure to call Farmers every time they wanted
Respondent to cave in on the subrogation , then the claim is valid. However, the end result is
what should define the communication issue- Farmers failed to communicate the demand upon
them to reduce the subrogation appropriately until October 16, 2008. Farmers refused to respond
to the demands to reduce the subrogation. Had Farmers communicated to Respondent the proper
response earlier, this would not have dragged out for months. No amount of Respondent's
communicating with them when the communications were one sided would have changed the
outcome. The primary issue here is not Respondent's failure to communicate, but the refusal of
Respondent to communicate what Farmers wanted him to say.
1.15 Failure to promptly deliver funds to client and third party.
ANSWER- Page 31 of 34
Funds from the first money received (June 13, 2008) was delivered as promptly as practical
(June 27, 2008). This subro debate began in October 2007. Farmers did not clearly agree to the
subro reduction until in the letter received on October 16, 2008. The only issue here was that
Respondent's staff did not give me the check until on or around November 25, 2008 when it was
received at my office on October 17, 2008. Respondent promptly deposited it once it was in my
hands and he sent Farmers a check on December I, 2008. Respondent reissued the check to
Farmers (notified them accordingly) on January 28, 2009 when Respondent was informed that
they had not received it and sent client the balance on February 5, 2009. The client check was a
week later since Respondent wanted Farmers check first cashed as an accord and satisfaction.
Bayliss/Farmers made unreasonable demands for payment after she intentionally delayed
resolution of the subrogation for a year hoping that we would cave in to her.
Respondent wrote off the costs at the first distribution although it was not necessary that
Respondent do so.
1.15 Failure to distribute undisputed funds:
There is nothing to explain here. There is no basis to this since client lied about the treatment
expenses with Dr. R resulting in those expenses being disputed. I caunot be held accountable of
the incorrect balance given by Dr. R which was not corrected until August 28, 2008.
8.44 Misrepresentation:
There is no basis for this. To the contrary it was the Client who misrepresented the purpose for
which medical costs were generated in Dr. Radnovich's. Moreover it was Ms. Bayliss at
Farmers who misrepresented to client that no rep letter had been sent in 2007 with the objective
of creating an excuse to communicate with our client notwithstanding the rep letter. Bayliss
actively engaged in manipulative behavior and misrepresented facts to client in an effort to
obtain the full subrogation amount despite the Wensman doctrine.
ANSWER- Page 32 of 34
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing allegations, averments, admissions and denials
that judgment be entered in favor Respondent and that this action be dismissed; or in the
alternative if judgment be rendered against Respondent that judgment be entered allowing
proceedings to under Rule 515 (c) to detennine the degree of current or potential incapacity of
Respondent and to determine under what conditions he may pursue the practice of law given a
finding of disability that impairs or threatens to impair his professional capacity.
DATED this 12'h day of July, 2010
RUNFT & STEELE LAW OFFICES, PLLC
ttomey for Plaintiffs
ANSWER- Page 33 of 34
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 12
111
day of July 2010, a true and correct copy
of the foregoing ANSWER, was served upon opposing counsel as follows:
Brad Andrews
Idaho State Bar
PO Box 895
Boise, ID 83701
ANSWER Page 34 of 34
_}{_US Mail
__ Personal Delivery
Facsimile
RUNFT & STEELE LAW OFFICES, PLLC

Jo
At
unft
mey for Plaintiffs
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
-(}:;)___ ~ )
I hereby ceJtify that on the /l/ day of l..t._Q,l , 2010, I served a true and correct
copy of the foregoing ANSWER by depositin!:e sa: in the U.S. mail at Boise, Idaho, each
enclosed in a separate, sealed, stamped envelope, and addressed as directed as follows:
John L. Runft
Attorney at Law
1020 W. Main Street, Suite 400
Boise, ID 83702
Joel P. Hazel, Chairman
Professional Conduct Board
608 Northwest Blvd., Ste. 300
Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814
Ron. Robelt J. Caldwell
Professional Conduct Board
P.O. Box 9000
Coeur d'Alene, ID 83816-9000
Sarah T. Hope
Professional Conduct Board
154 Keyhole Drive
Jerome, ID 83338
Sue Nelson
Clerk of the Professional Conduct Board
I further ceJtify that I served a true and correct copy of the aforesaid document(s) upon Bar
Counsel/Deputy Bar Counsel for the Idaho State Bar by personally delivering said copy to Office
of Bar Counsel at the Idaho State Bar, 525 W. Jefferson, Boise, Idaho.