My father’s guardianship nightmare began in 2009, a result of not being able to find dad after mom died; someone took advantage of him being in shock and grief after the sudden loss of his wife of 63 years. Mom had been ill-advised to become guardian of my father’s “person” due to his physical disabilities; my father was never incompetent. I called Guardianship Commissioner Norheim’s office for help. I knew nothing of the Family Court’s bad reputation at the time. Norheim’s office gave me Jared E. Shafer’s phone number. Shafer said I needed an attorney to help my father and sent me to Elyse Tyrell, who assured me that if Shafer were to be made temporary guardian he would get my father away from the person hiding him and in no time I could take my father back to California. Tyrell did not tell me she was Shafer’s attorney.
As soon as Shafer became guardian, Tyrell, who I had a legal agreement with, told me she did not work for me, she worked for “Jared” and to go find another attorney! This “temporary” guardianship turned into a permanent one and any objections I had were consistently dismissed by Norheim. Shafer and his attorneys made false statements about me to the court which Norheim accepted.
Thus began a long expensive battle to free my father of Shafer’s guardianship over person and estate. Shafer and his attorneys told the court that their extensive legal fees billed to my father were my fault for challenging his guardianship!
Several state statutes were violated during my father’s guardianship, in particular NRS Chapter 160, which restricts guardians to having no more than five wards and limits how much they can bill if they have even one veteran as a ward. Our attorneys pointed out these violations but Norheim approved all of Shafer’s actions.
Shafer did not provide an attorney for my father and prevented dad from attending his own hearings. When we finally brought dad to court Shafer and his attorney laughed at him and Norheim was reluctant to let him speak. My father stated in court that he wanted to go back to California but his testimony was ignored.
After that hearing my father asked my husband and I to take him back to California because he was fearful and wanted to be with us. Shafer immediately had the judge issue a bench warrant on me for contempt of court but he told everyone it was for kidnapping. He spent thousands of dad’s money trying to have the warrant transferred to California without success.
No family member should fall for the threats and false statements made by any guardian. The guardians are experts at intimidating families from taking action. I believe we were the first to save a parent from Shafer. Despite the losses we are happy we did what was necessary, resulting in my father spending his last years as a free man. His final years were happy; he enjoyed his family, his VFW Post and his friends. He never went anywhere without his WW2 Veteran cap and loved all the attention and “thank you for your service” comments.
Source:
The Vegas Voice:
See Also:
NASGA: Lupe Olvera, CA/NV Victim
Saturday, May 7, 2016
Rana Goodman Chosen "Senior Citizen of the Year"
Congratulations to Vegas Voice political editor Rana Goodman for being selected “Senior Citizen of the Year” by the Nevada delegation of the National Silver Haired Congress.
Source:
The Vegas Voice
See Also:
StopGuardianAbuseNV
Source:
The Vegas Voice
See Also:
StopGuardianAbuseNV
Congratulations to KTNV ABC 13 Action News!
Nominated for a 2016 Emmy award for their News Special: Guardianship Under Fire!
Watch "Guardianship Under Fire"
Watch "Guardianship Under Fire"
Friday, May 6, 2016
Chatham County probate clerk who admitted theft sues to get her pension restored
SAVANNAH | Convicted former Chatham County Probate Court Chief Clerk Kim Birge has challenged the denial of her county pension benefits based on her conviction.
The challenge was filed Thursday in Chatham County Superior Court for Birge and her husband, Lawrence Franklin Birge. It named Chatham County acting through the Chatham County Pension Board.
It asks a judge to review the facts and hold a hearing to require the pension board to show why it should not be required to provide Birge with her pension.
Birge, 62, worked for the county and was a member of the retirement plan from July 19, 1982, until she was terminated Dec. 2, 2014.
She pleaded guilty in federal court on July 31, 2015, to stealing $232,000 from the court as part of a scheme in which the government said she stole more than $750,000 over a three-year period.
She was sentenced to six years in federal prison and ordered to make restitution of more than $750,000 for her admission to stealing $232,000 from the court.
As part of the plea to the mail fraud count, prosecutors dismissed the remaining counts in the indictment.
A pre-sentencing investigation identified 33 individual victims, two estates and Chatham County Probate Court that suffered losses as the result of her conduct.
U.S. District Judge William T. Moore Jr. said the 36 victims suffered actual losses, adding that none of the funds ever belonged to the court.
He set the actual restitution in the case at $751,715.95.
Chatham County officials contend Birge stole $890,000 from individuals and another $113,000 from Chatham County.
At her sentencing, Birge told Moore she “wanted to ask forgiveness for everybody who has been affected by my wrongdoing. … I am ashamed and embarrassed.”
The petition seeking her pension, filed by attorney Walter Bellow III, said she applied for her benefits under the Chatham County Employees Retirement Plan on Jan. 5, 2015, and was denied on Jan. 26, 2015.
She appealed and was denied March 30.
Her suit said denial of her pension is “unreasonable, capricious and arbitrary and an illegal attempt to exercise discretion which is clearly forbidden by Georgia law.”
The county argued that the pension contained criminal conduct violations of which “are specifically contemplated” in the county’s plan.
Those violations include convictions for theft, sabotage, embezzlement, and fraud.
Further, the pension plan mandates that the pension board “reduce any sum to Ms. Birge by three times the amount of the economic impact of her crime. … That sum is far above that is available for the board to seize.”
At Birge’s sentencing hearing, Clarence Bynes Jr. – one of Birge’s 33 individual victims – told Moore that, “This is atrocious. … There was no fear here. ... This was just greed. Why would anyone do this to young kids. ... Ms. Birge should be ashamed.”
He told the judge he lost $217,000 with Probate Court from the sale of his father’s house. He did not learn of the theft until the day he went to claim the money and was told his money was gone.
“I’m sorry. ... Your honor, this is not fair,” Bynes said.
Full Article & Source:
Chatham County probate clerk who admitted theft sues to get her pension restored
51 Texas Lawyers & Judges Disciplined March-May
Disciplinary Actions — March, April & May 2016 State Bar lists (verbatim from the State Bar of Texas)
General questions regarding attorney discipline should be directed to
the Chief Disciplinary Counsel’s Office, toll-free (877) 953-5535 or
(512) 453-5535. The Board of Disciplinary Appeals may be reached at
(512) 475-1578. Information and copies of actual orders are available
at www.txboda.org.
The State Commission on Judicial Conduct may be contacted toll-free,
(877) 228-5750 or (512) 463-5533. Please note that persons disciplined
by the Commission on Judicial Conduct are not necessarily licensed
attorneys.
Houston area discipline
BODAOn January 12, 2016, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals signed an agreed interlocutory order of suspension against Houston attorney Abraham M. Fisch [#07039900], 57. On or about November 25, 2015, by amended judgment, Fisch was convicted in United States of America v. Abraham Moses Fisch, aka Anthony Fisch, Case No. 4:11CR722-001, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas holding session in Houston of one count of conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice; four counts of obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting; one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering; seven counts of money laundering, aiding and abetting; and five counts of failure to file a tax return—intentional crimes as defined in the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure—and was sentenced to 180 months of incarceration. Upon release from imprisonment, he will be on supervised release for five years. Fisch has appealed his criminal conviction. The board retains jurisdiction to enter a final judgment when the criminal appeal is final. BODA Cause No. 57005.
On February 2, 2016, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals signed an interlocutory order of suspension against Houston attorney William Topp Maxwell [#24028775], 56. On or about August 11, 2015, by amended judgment, Maxwell was convicted in United States of America v. William Maxwell, Defendant, Case No.1:11-CR-00740, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, of racketeering conspiracy, conspiracy to commit securities fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, money laundering conspiracy, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and conspiracy to sell or transfer firearms and ammunition to a prohibited person—intentional crimes as defined in the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure—and was sentenced to 240 months of incarceration. Upon release from imprisonment, he will be on supervised release for three years. Maxwell has appealed his criminal conviction. The board retains jurisdiction to enter a final judgment when the criminal appeal is final. BODA Cause No. 56591.
RESIGNATIONOn February 16, 2016, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation in lieu of discipline of Jose William Vega [#24034826], 50, of Houston. At the time of Vega’s resignation, there were 38 disciplinary proceedings pending, which among them alleged that Vega neglected legal matters entrusted to him, failed to carry out completely the obligations owed to his clients, failed to communicate and failed to keep clients reasonably informed about their legal matters, failed to timely return unearned fees, failed to respond to grievances filed against him, and failed to properly supervise nonlawyer staff. Vega violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.01(b)(2), 1.03(a), 1.03(b), 1.15(d), 5.03(a), 5.03(b), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $27,133 in restitution and $11,357 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
SUSPENSIONS
On January 26, 2016, Bretton Craig Gerard [#07813050], 56, of Richardson, received a two-year fully probated suspension effective February 1, 2016. In February 2013, the complainant requested representation in a bankruptcy matter and gave property to Gerard to hold toward a retainer. Thereafter, Gerard failed to hold the property separate from his own property. Gerard failed to deliver the property to the complainant upon request and failed to promptly render a full accounting of the property. Gerard violated Rules 1.14(a) and 1.14(b). He was ordered to pay $9,800 in restitution and $3,570 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On March 10, 2016, Kevin M. Hall [#24041041], 45, of Houston, accepted a one-year fully probated suspension effective March 15, 2016. An evidentiary panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee found that Hall neglected a legal matter, failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of her case, and failed to promptly comply with his client’s reasonable requests for information. Upon the termination of his representation, Hall failed to surrender papers and property to which his client was entitled and failed to timely respond to the grievance. Hall violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $1,500 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On March 11, 2016, Kevin M. Hall [#24041041], 45, of Houston, accepted a one-year fully probated suspension effective March 15, 2016. An evidentiary panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee found that Hall neglected a legal matter, failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of his case, and failed to promptly comply with his client’s reasonable requests for information. Hall further failed to timely respond to the grievance. Hall violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $1,000 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On November 24, 2015, Frank Anthony Knight III [#11598500], 63, of Baytown, received a 30-month partially probated suspension effective January 1, 2016, with the first six months actively suspended and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee found that in two matters Knight neglected the legal matters entrusted to him and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information from the clients about their legal matters. In one of the matters, Knight failed to refund advance payments of fees that had not been earned and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. In the other matter, Knight failed to timely furnish to the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel a response or other information as required by the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. In a third matter, Knight again failed to timely furnish to the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel a response or other information as required by the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Knight violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), 8.04(a)(3), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $3,500 in restitution and $1,535 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On January 20, 2016, Brent M. Wasserstein [#24039234], 40, of Houston, accepted a two-year fully probated suspension effective February 1, 2016. An evidentiary panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee found that Wasserstein neglected his client’s case, failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of the case, and failed to promptly comply with his client’s reasonable requests for information. Throughout the representation, Wasserstein engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Wasserstein further failed to timely respond to the grievance. Wasserstein violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 8.04(a)(3), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $1,000 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
Elsewhere in the state
JUDICIAL ACTIONS To read the entire public sanctions, go to scjc.texas.gov.
On March 3, 2016, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public warning and order of additional education to Ben E. Brady, justice of the peace of Precinct 3, Place 1 in Maxwell, Caldwell County. Brady violated Canons 2A and 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct and Article V, section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution.
On January 28, 2016, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public admonition and order of additional education to Robert “Bobby” Contreras, justice of the peace of Precinct 2, Place 1 in Pharr, Hidalgo County. Contreras violated Canons 2A, 3B(2), and 3B(8) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.
On February 25 2016, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public reprimand and order of additional education to Mike Herrera, 383rd Judicial District Court judge in El Paso, El Paso County. Herrera violated Canons 2A, 2B, 3B(1), 3B(2), and 3B(5) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct and Article V, section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution.
On February 29, 2016, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public warning and order of additional education to Skeet Lee Jones, county judge in Mentone, Loving County. Jones violated Canons 2A and 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct and Article V, section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution.
On February 29, 2016, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public reprimand to Bradley Wayne Stringer, former justice of the peace of Precinct 3, Place 1 in Huntington, Angelina County. Stringer violated Canons 2A, 3B(2), and 3B(4) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct and Article V, section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution.
BODAOn January 7, 2016, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals entered an agreed order of indefinite disability suspension against Rique Don Bobbitt [#02534000], 69, of Cameron, in accordance with Part XII of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure and section 8 of the Internal Procedural Rules of the Board of Disciplinary Appeals. BODA Cause No. 57117.
On January 29, 2016, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals signed an agreed interlocutory order of suspension against Edinburg attorney Rodrigo Martinez Jr. [#13144200], 59. On or about June 16, 2015, Martinez was convicted in The State of Texas v. Rodrigo Martinez, Jr. Defendant, Cause No. CR-2152-12-G in the 370th District Court of Hidalgo County, of theft of the value of $200,000 or more, a first-degree felony; sentenced to seven years imprisonment; and ordered to pay court costs of $228 as well as $410,000 in restitution. Martinez has appealed his criminal conviction. The board retains jurisdiction to enter a final judgment when the criminal appeal is final. BODA Cause No. 56590.
On February 8, 2016, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals affirmed the judgment of disbarment of Caldwell attorney Charles J. Sebesta Jr. [#17970000], 75, signed on June 11, 2015, by the evidentiary panel of the District 8-2 Grievance Committee in Case No. 201400539. A copy of the opinion issued by the board in this matter may be found at txboda.org. BODA Cause No. 56406.
On February 2, 2016, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals affirmed the judgment of disbarment of St. Louis, Missouri, and Austin attorney Charles Dee Septowski [#18032325], 61, signed on March 3, 2015, by the evidentiary panel of the District 9-03 Grievance Committee in Case No. 201400356. BODA Cause No. 55901.
On February 2, 2016, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals signed a judgment of suspension against Dallas attorney Mpatanishi Syanaloli Tayari-Garrett [#24073090], 40. Garrett was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law and ineligible to apply for reinstatement for 120 days after the effective date of the order of suspension in a matter styled In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Mpatanishi Syanaloli Tayari-Garrett, A Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 342075, 866 N.W.2d 513, for willfully disobeying a court mandate, making a false or misleading statement to a tribunal, and being convicted of willfully disobeying a court mandate. Garrett is suspended from the practice of law in Texas for 120 days, from February 8, 2016, to June 7, 2016. BODA Cause No. 56589.
DISBARMENTOn January 14, 2016, Raul H. Loya [#00791142], 51, of Dallas, was disbarred. In a trial before a jury of 12 duly qualified and selected jurors in the 134th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, the jury found that Loya committed professional misconduct in violation of Rules 1.15(a)(3) and 3.03(a)(1) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. Loya was ordered to pay $10,525.12 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses. Loya had until February 13, 2016, to file an appeal.
RESIGNATIONSOn March 22, 2016, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation in lieu of discipline of Carrie Beth Crisp [#24074093], 34, of San Marcos. At the time of her resignation, there was one disciplinary matter pending, alleging Crisp accepted or continued employment beyond her competence, continued the representation when her own interest adversely limited her ability to represent her client, neglected the client matter and made false statements to the client about the work that had been performed, and failed to return the client file. Crisp violated Rules 1.01(a), 1.01(b)(1), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(3).
On March 22, 2016, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation in lieu of discipline of Jennie R. Mathis [#00793647], 57, of Arlington. At the time of Mathis’s resignation, there were two pending matters. In the first matter, in May 2014, the complainant hired Mathis in a family law matter. Mathis neglected the case and failed to communicate. In the second matter, in 2006, the complainant hired Mathis in connection with a divorce. A final divorce decree was signed in 2010. Mathis failed to prepare and file a final order awarding the house to the complainant. Finally, Mathis failed to respond to the notice of complaint.
On March 22, 2016, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation in lieu of discipline of Anirudh D. Sarwal [#24002895], 42, of Austin. At the time of Sarwal’s resignation, a judgment in a criminal case had been entered in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, wherein Sarwal pled guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud and was committed to the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a total term of 57 months and ordered upon release from imprisonment to be on supervised release for a term of two years. Sarwal was further ordered to pay an assessment in the amount of $100 and restitution in the amount of $13,461,604.31. This conviction would subject Sarwal to compulsory discipline.
SUSPENSIONSOn January 11, 2016, Johnnie Lee Almon Jr. [#24043533], 48, of Fort Worth, received a two-year fully probated suspension effective February 1, 2016. In November 2009, complainants hired Almon in a personal injury matter. Almon neglected the legal matter entrusted to him, failed to keep the complainants informed of the status of their case, and engaged in conduct involving misrepresentation. Almon violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(b), and 8.04(a)(3). He was ordered to pay $950 in restitution and $1,232 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On November 13, 2015, Jose Angel Becerra [#24026790], 41, of Laredo, received a one-year and 15-day partially probated suspension effective November 18, 2015, with the first 15 days actively served and the remainder probated (August 23, 2017, to August 22, 2018). The District 12 Grievance Committee found that Becerra failed to hold client funds separate from his own property, failed to promptly deliver an accounting to his client, failed to return an unearned fee, and failed to respond to the grievance. Becerra violated Rules 1.14(a), 1.14(b), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $39,922.50 in restitution and $12,412 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On November 10, 2015, Garry Philip Cantrell [#00789200], 57, of Dallas, received a two-year active suspension effective November 10, 2015. The 193rd Judicial District Court of Dallas County found that Cantrell violated Rules 1.04(d) [a contingent fee agreement shall be in writing and shall state the method by which the fee is to be determined], 1.14(b) [upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or third person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person and promptly deliver to the client or third person any funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled to receive], 3.01 [a lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless the lawyer reasonably believes that there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous], and 4.04(b)(2) [a lawyer shall not present civil charges against a complainant, a witness, or a potential witness in a bar disciplinary proceeding solely to prevent participation by the complainant, witness, or potential witness therein]. Cantrell was ordered to pay $15,211.57 in restitution, $4,821.50 in attorneys’ fees, and $530.45 in direct expenses.
On January 26, 2016, Cynthia Rachelle Wil Cole [#24035579], 42, of Rockwall, agreed to a one-year probated suspension effective February 1, 2016. The District 6 Grievance Committee found that on or about June 1, 2012, Cole filed a civil lawsuit that was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. By filing such suit, Cole brought a proceeding, or asserted an issue therein, that Cole did not reasonably believe had a basis for doing so that was not frivolous. Furthermore, Cole, in the same civil action, failed to comply with orders of the court. Cole’s noncompliance unreasonably increased the costs and burdens of the action and unreasonably delayed resolution of the matter. Cole violated Rules 3.01 and 3.02. She was ordered to pay $1,750 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On December 21, 2015, Angel Ottoniel Cruz [#24048412], 40, of Irving, received a 12-month partially probated suspension effective January 1, 2016, with the first three months actively served and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that in representing the complainant in an immigration matter, Cruz neglected the legal matter entrusted to him by failing to comply with requests for more information for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Cruz failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information from the complainant about the status of his immigration matter. Upon termination of representation, Cruz failed to refund advance payments of fees that had not been earned. Cruz failed to timely furnish to the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel a response or other information as required by the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure and did not in good faith timely assert a privilege or other legal ground for his failure to do so. Cruz violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $600 in restitution and $1,151.50 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On February 18, 2016, Keith F. Ellis [#00790642], 59, of Vidor, received an 18-month partially probated suspension effective March 13, 2016, with the first six months actively suspended and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 3 Grievance Committee found that Ellis neglected a probate matter, failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of the probate matter, and failed to promptly comply with his client’s reasonable requests for information. Upon his termination, the respondent failed to refund advance payments of fees that had not been earned. The respondent also failed to respond to the grievance. Ellis violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $2,500 in restitution and $1,770 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On March 2, 2016, Robert E. Fitzgerald [#07088700], 65, of Dallas, received a five-year partially probated suspension effective February 1, 2016, with the first two years actively suspended and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that in representing the complainant, Fitzgerald neglected the legal matter entrusted to him. Fitzgerald also failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed about the status of her case and promptly comply with her reasonable requests for information. Furthermore, Fitzgerald misrepresented information to the complainant about her case. Fitzgerald violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), and 8.04(a)(3). He was ordered to pay $1,722.50 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On January 6, 2016, Robert James Hayes [#24057610], 43, of San Antonio, accepted a three-month fully probated suspension effective March 1, 2016. The District 10 Grievance Committee found that Hayes neglected a client matter, failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, and failed to refund unearned fees. Hayes violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), and 1.15(d). He was ordered to pay $1,500 in restitution and $800 in attorneys’ fees.
On January 14, 2016, Alfred L. Isassi [#24010124], 43, of Kingsville, accepted a four-month fully probated suspension effective February 1, 2016. The District 11 Grievance Committee found that Isassi communicated about the subject matter of the representation with someone represented by counsel. Isassi violated Rule 4.02(a) and was ordered to pay $800 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On January 21, 2016, Matthew Scott Jones [#24002374], 43, of Austin, accepted a one-year probated suspension effective January 1, 2016. An evidentiary panel of the District 9 Grievance Committee found that the complainant hired Jones in April of 2014 to convert a California corporation into a Texas corporation. The complainant paid Jones $4,600, which included the necessary filing fees. Jones completed the required documents but failed to file them with the Texas secretary of state or with the appropriate California entity. After July of 2014, the complainant was unable to contact Jones to ascertain the status of the matter. Jones failed to complete the work for which the complainant had hired him. Jones did not return either the unearned fees or the filing fees of $671.88 that the complainant paid. Jones violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.14(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(1). He was ordered to pay $2,600 in restitution and $284.17 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On February 21, 2016, Robert M. Jones [#10951000], 71, of Duncanville, received a two-year active suspension effective March 1, 2016. The 68th Judicial District Court of Dallas County found that Jones violated Rules 1.01(b)(1) [prohibiting a lawyer from neglecting a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer], and 1.03(a) [requiring a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information]. Jones was ordered to pay $2,494.50 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On March 28, 2016, George Gregory Lake [#24081565], 29, of Marshall, received a 36-month partially probated suspension effective March 23, 2016, with the first 18 months actively suspended and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 1 Grievance Committee found that in representing the complainant in connection with a criminal law matter, Lake neglected the legal matter en-trusted to him by failing to provide legal services. Lake failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed about the status of his criminal matter, failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information from the complainant about his criminal matter, and, upon termination of the representation, failed to refund advance payments of fees that had not been earned. Lake violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $2,000 in restitution and $1,137.25 in attorneys’ fees. Lake had until April 27, 2016, to file an appeal.
On February 24, 2016, Douglas Matthew McMaster [#13786020], 53, of Brownsville, accepted a 27-month fully probated suspension effective March 1, 2016. The District 12 Grievance Committee found that McMaster neglected client legal matters, failed to promptly comply with reasonable re-quests for information, and failed to respond to one grievance. McMaster violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), and 8.04(a)(8). He was or-dered to pay $600 in restitution and $1,000 in attorneys’ fees.
On February 9, 2016, Laura Gayle Nelson [#14903550], 56, of Seguin, accepted a one-year fully probated suspension effective February 22, 2016. The District 15 Grievance Committee found that Nelson failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, failed to hold client funds separate from her own property, and engaged in the practice of law while her law license was administratively suspended. Nelson violated Rules 1.03(a), 1.14(a), and 8.04(a)(11). She was ordered to pay $2,537.85 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On January 20, 2016, Marcus D. Norman [#24007759], 45, of McKinney, received a one-year partially probated suspension effective January 15, 2016, with the first three months actively suspended and the remainder probated. The 417th Judicial District Court of Collin County found that Norman committed professional misconduct by violating Rule 1.03(a) [failed to keep complainant reasonably informed about the status of the case and failed to promptly comply with complainant’s reasonable request for information]. Norman was ordered to pay $1,500 in restitution and $1,000 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On February 5, 2016, Amanda Marie Payton [#24079117], 29, of Plano, received a 24-month partially probated suspension, with one month active (February 15, 2016, through March 14, 2016) and 23 months probated (March 15, 2016, through February 14, 2018). An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that Payton engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation. Payton violated Rule 8.04(a)(3). She was ordered to pay $1,800 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On January 12, 2016, Benjamin Robert Peppard [#24083647], 31, of Fort Worth, received an 18-month probated suspension effective January 6, 2016. The District 7 Grievance Committee found that, in representing the complainant in a contract dispute, Peppard neglected the legal matter entrusted to him by failing to perform any legal services. Peppard failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed about the status of the contract dispute and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information from the complainant about the contract dispute. Upon termination of representation, Peppard failed to surrender papers and property to which the complainant was entitled. Peppard violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), and 1.15(d). He was ordered to pay $1,000 in restitution, $2,525 in attorneys’ fees, and $699.50 in direct expenses.
On January 22, 2016, Harold Brandon Price [#24049263], 44, of Dallas, received a fully probated suspension for a period of six months beginning March 1, 2016. An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that Price neglected a legal matter entrusted to him by his client and failed to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of her legal matter and failed to promptly comply with the client’s reasonable requests for information regarding the case. Price violated Rules 1.01(b)(1) and 1.03(a). He was ordered to pay $3,109.50 in attorneys’ fees and $890.50 in direct expenses.
On January 22, 2016, Kelvin Lernard Roquemore [#24002867], 48, of Dallas, received a 24-month partially probated suspension effective February 1, 2016, with the first six months actively suspended and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that on or about February 3, 2012, the complainant hired Roquemore for representation in a civil matter. Roquemore failed to hold funds belonging to the complainant separate from Roquemore’s own property. Roquemore failed to keep funds that belonged to the complainant in a separate trust account. Upon receiving funds in which the complainant had an interest, Roquemore failed to promptly notify the complainant. Roquemore failed to promptly deliver to the complainant funds that the complainant was entitled to receive. Roquemore violated Rules 1.14(a), 1.14(b), and 1.14(c). He was ordered to pay $2,287 in restitution, $3,000 in attorneys’ fees, and $483.50 in direct expenses. Roquemore did not file an appeal.
On December 10, 2015, Brian Wade Rogers [#24041811], 40, of Victoria, received a one-year partially probated suspension effective December 9, 2015, with the first month actively served and the remainder probated. The District 11 Grievance Committee found that Rogers neglected a client matter, failed to keep a client reasonably informed, failed to promptly render a full accounting, failed to return unearned fees, and failed to return the client file. Rogers violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a)(b), 1.14(b), and 1.15(d). He was ordered to pay $4,000 in restitution and $2,132.10 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On December 29, 2015, Kimberly A. Stovall [#19337000], 53, of Dallas, received a 12-month partially probated suspension effective December 20, 2015. An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that Stovall failed to hold funds belonging in whole or in part to clients or third persons that were in Stovall’s possession in connection with the representation separate from Stovall’s own property. Stovall had direct supervisory authority over a non-lawyer assistant and failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the assistant’s conduct was compatible with the professional obligations of Stovall. Stovall violated Rules 1.14(a) and 5.03. She was ordered to pay $6,448.50 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On February 10, 2016, Staci Jennifer Strong [#24037564], 43, of Dallas, agreed to 30 months of probated suspension effective March 1, 2016. The District 6 Grievance Committee found that Strong failed to keep funds belonging in whole or in part to the complainant separate from her own property. Upon receiving funds in which the complainant had an interest, Strong failed to promptly notify the complainant. Strong failed to promptly deliver to the complainant funds that the complainant was entitled to receive. Strong engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, de- ceit, or misrepresentation. Strong violated Rules 1.14(a), 1.14(b), and 8.04(a)(3). She was ordered to pay $25,359.67 in restitution and $2,000 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On December 16, 2015, Roger Mathew Tafel [#19607775], 53, of Euless, received a five-year active suspension effective December 2, 2015. An evidentiary panel of the District 7 Grievance Committee found that the complainant hired Tafel for representation in a personal injury matter. Tafel later represented the complainant in a credit matter. Tafel failed to communicate with the complainant and failed to file a response to the grievance. Tafel violated Rules 1.03(a) and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $1,488 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On January 11, 2016, Robert J. Truhill [#20254500], 70, of El Paso, accepted a 12-month fully probated suspension effective April 15, 2016. The District 17 Grievance Committee found that Truhill neglected a client matter, failed to keep the client reasonably informed, upon termination failed to return unearned fees, engaged in conduct involving misrepresentation, failed to comply with a prior disciplinary judgment, and failed to respond to the grievance in a timely manner. Truhill violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.03(b), 1.15(d), 8.01(b), 8.04(a)(3), 8.04(a)(7), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $1,000 in restitution and $1,350 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On January 6, 2016, Winston N. Udeh [#20369640], 54, of Dallas, agreed to a three-month probated suspension effective January 15, 2016. The District 6 Grievance Committee found that in representing the complainant, Udeh neglected the legal matter entrusted to him, failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed about the status of a matter, and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. Upon termination of representation, Udeh failed to refund payments of fees. Udeh failed to timely furnish to the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel a response or other information as required by the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Udeh did not in good faith timely assert a privilege or other legal ground for his failure to do so. Udeh violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $100 in restitution and $450 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
PUBLIC REPRIMANDSOn February 10, 2016, Michael Andrew Casey [#03958700], 60, of Arlington, received an agreed judgment of public reprimand. An evidentiary panel of the District 7 Grievance Committee found that Casey failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed about the status of his civil matter. Casey violated Rule 1.03(a). He was ordered to pay $713.25 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On February 8, 2016, Kelley Elise Cash [#24001852], 43, of Dallas, received a public reprimand. An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that Cash engaged in the practice of law when her right to practice had been administratively suspended for failure to timely pay required fees or assessments. Cash violated Rule 8.04(a)(11). She was ordered to pay $750 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On December 17, 2015, Frank A. Denena II [#00785815], 57, of Franklin, received an agreed judgment of public reprimand. An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that in representing the complainant, Denena neglected the legal matter entrusted to him. In addition, Denena failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed about the status of his matter and promptly comply with his reasonable requests for information. Denena violated Rules 1.01(b)(1) and 1.03(a). He was ordered to pay $1,000 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On February 8, 2016, Viney K. Gupta [#00790085], 67, of Orange, California, accepted a public reprimand. An evidentiary panel of the District 9 Grievance Committee found that while representing a client in an immigration case, Gupta failed to properly calendar a final hearing, failed to contact the court for additional information, and failed to attend the final hearing. Gupta violated Rules 1.01(b)(1) and 8.04(a)(1). She was ordered to pay $6,103.10 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On December 15, 2015, Sandra D. Laurel [#11996800], 51, of San Antonio, accepted a judgment of public reprimand. The District 10 Grievance Committee found that Laurel failed to promptly deliver funds to parties entitled to receive funds and failed to hold the client’s funds separate from her personal property. Laurel violated Rules 1.14(a) and 1.14(b). She was ordered to pay $3,675 in restitution and $800 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
BODAOn January 12, 2016, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals signed an agreed interlocutory order of suspension against Houston attorney Abraham M. Fisch [#07039900], 57. On or about November 25, 2015, by amended judgment, Fisch was convicted in United States of America v. Abraham Moses Fisch, aka Anthony Fisch, Case No. 4:11CR722-001, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas holding session in Houston of one count of conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice; four counts of obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting; one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering; seven counts of money laundering, aiding and abetting; and five counts of failure to file a tax return—intentional crimes as defined in the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure—and was sentenced to 180 months of incarceration. Upon release from imprisonment, he will be on supervised release for five years. Fisch has appealed his criminal conviction. The board retains jurisdiction to enter a final judgment when the criminal appeal is final. BODA Cause No. 57005.
On February 2, 2016, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals signed an interlocutory order of suspension against Houston attorney William Topp Maxwell [#24028775], 56. On or about August 11, 2015, by amended judgment, Maxwell was convicted in United States of America v. William Maxwell, Defendant, Case No.1:11-CR-00740, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, of racketeering conspiracy, conspiracy to commit securities fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, money laundering conspiracy, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and conspiracy to sell or transfer firearms and ammunition to a prohibited person—intentional crimes as defined in the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure—and was sentenced to 240 months of incarceration. Upon release from imprisonment, he will be on supervised release for three years. Maxwell has appealed his criminal conviction. The board retains jurisdiction to enter a final judgment when the criminal appeal is final. BODA Cause No. 56591.
RESIGNATIONOn February 16, 2016, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation in lieu of discipline of Jose William Vega [#24034826], 50, of Houston. At the time of Vega’s resignation, there were 38 disciplinary proceedings pending, which among them alleged that Vega neglected legal matters entrusted to him, failed to carry out completely the obligations owed to his clients, failed to communicate and failed to keep clients reasonably informed about their legal matters, failed to timely return unearned fees, failed to respond to grievances filed against him, and failed to properly supervise nonlawyer staff. Vega violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.01(b)(2), 1.03(a), 1.03(b), 1.15(d), 5.03(a), 5.03(b), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $27,133 in restitution and $11,357 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
SUSPENSIONS
On January 26, 2016, Bretton Craig Gerard [#07813050], 56, of Richardson, received a two-year fully probated suspension effective February 1, 2016. In February 2013, the complainant requested representation in a bankruptcy matter and gave property to Gerard to hold toward a retainer. Thereafter, Gerard failed to hold the property separate from his own property. Gerard failed to deliver the property to the complainant upon request and failed to promptly render a full accounting of the property. Gerard violated Rules 1.14(a) and 1.14(b). He was ordered to pay $9,800 in restitution and $3,570 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On March 10, 2016, Kevin M. Hall [#24041041], 45, of Houston, accepted a one-year fully probated suspension effective March 15, 2016. An evidentiary panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee found that Hall neglected a legal matter, failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of her case, and failed to promptly comply with his client’s reasonable requests for information. Upon the termination of his representation, Hall failed to surrender papers and property to which his client was entitled and failed to timely respond to the grievance. Hall violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $1,500 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On March 11, 2016, Kevin M. Hall [#24041041], 45, of Houston, accepted a one-year fully probated suspension effective March 15, 2016. An evidentiary panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee found that Hall neglected a legal matter, failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of his case, and failed to promptly comply with his client’s reasonable requests for information. Hall further failed to timely respond to the grievance. Hall violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $1,000 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On November 24, 2015, Frank Anthony Knight III [#11598500], 63, of Baytown, received a 30-month partially probated suspension effective January 1, 2016, with the first six months actively suspended and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee found that in two matters Knight neglected the legal matters entrusted to him and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information from the clients about their legal matters. In one of the matters, Knight failed to refund advance payments of fees that had not been earned and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. In the other matter, Knight failed to timely furnish to the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel a response or other information as required by the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. In a third matter, Knight again failed to timely furnish to the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel a response or other information as required by the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Knight violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), 8.04(a)(3), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $3,500 in restitution and $1,535 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On January 20, 2016, Brent M. Wasserstein [#24039234], 40, of Houston, accepted a two-year fully probated suspension effective February 1, 2016. An evidentiary panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee found that Wasserstein neglected his client’s case, failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of the case, and failed to promptly comply with his client’s reasonable requests for information. Throughout the representation, Wasserstein engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Wasserstein further failed to timely respond to the grievance. Wasserstein violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 8.04(a)(3), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $1,000 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
Elsewhere in the state
JUDICIAL ACTIONS To read the entire public sanctions, go to scjc.texas.gov.
On March 3, 2016, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public warning and order of additional education to Ben E. Brady, justice of the peace of Precinct 3, Place 1 in Maxwell, Caldwell County. Brady violated Canons 2A and 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct and Article V, section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution.
On January 28, 2016, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public admonition and order of additional education to Robert “Bobby” Contreras, justice of the peace of Precinct 2, Place 1 in Pharr, Hidalgo County. Contreras violated Canons 2A, 3B(2), and 3B(8) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.
On February 25 2016, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public reprimand and order of additional education to Mike Herrera, 383rd Judicial District Court judge in El Paso, El Paso County. Herrera violated Canons 2A, 2B, 3B(1), 3B(2), and 3B(5) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct and Article V, section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution.
On February 29, 2016, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public warning and order of additional education to Skeet Lee Jones, county judge in Mentone, Loving County. Jones violated Canons 2A and 3B(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct and Article V, section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution.
On February 29, 2016, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public reprimand to Bradley Wayne Stringer, former justice of the peace of Precinct 3, Place 1 in Huntington, Angelina County. Stringer violated Canons 2A, 3B(2), and 3B(4) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct and Article V, section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution.
BODAOn January 7, 2016, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals entered an agreed order of indefinite disability suspension against Rique Don Bobbitt [#02534000], 69, of Cameron, in accordance with Part XII of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure and section 8 of the Internal Procedural Rules of the Board of Disciplinary Appeals. BODA Cause No. 57117.
On January 29, 2016, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals signed an agreed interlocutory order of suspension against Edinburg attorney Rodrigo Martinez Jr. [#13144200], 59. On or about June 16, 2015, Martinez was convicted in The State of Texas v. Rodrigo Martinez, Jr. Defendant, Cause No. CR-2152-12-G in the 370th District Court of Hidalgo County, of theft of the value of $200,000 or more, a first-degree felony; sentenced to seven years imprisonment; and ordered to pay court costs of $228 as well as $410,000 in restitution. Martinez has appealed his criminal conviction. The board retains jurisdiction to enter a final judgment when the criminal appeal is final. BODA Cause No. 56590.
On February 8, 2016, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals affirmed the judgment of disbarment of Caldwell attorney Charles J. Sebesta Jr. [#17970000], 75, signed on June 11, 2015, by the evidentiary panel of the District 8-2 Grievance Committee in Case No. 201400539. A copy of the opinion issued by the board in this matter may be found at txboda.org. BODA Cause No. 56406.
On February 2, 2016, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals affirmed the judgment of disbarment of St. Louis, Missouri, and Austin attorney Charles Dee Septowski [#18032325], 61, signed on March 3, 2015, by the evidentiary panel of the District 9-03 Grievance Committee in Case No. 201400356. BODA Cause No. 55901.
On February 2, 2016, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals signed a judgment of suspension against Dallas attorney Mpatanishi Syanaloli Tayari-Garrett [#24073090], 40. Garrett was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law and ineligible to apply for reinstatement for 120 days after the effective date of the order of suspension in a matter styled In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Mpatanishi Syanaloli Tayari-Garrett, A Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 342075, 866 N.W.2d 513, for willfully disobeying a court mandate, making a false or misleading statement to a tribunal, and being convicted of willfully disobeying a court mandate. Garrett is suspended from the practice of law in Texas for 120 days, from February 8, 2016, to June 7, 2016. BODA Cause No. 56589.
DISBARMENTOn January 14, 2016, Raul H. Loya [#00791142], 51, of Dallas, was disbarred. In a trial before a jury of 12 duly qualified and selected jurors in the 134th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, the jury found that Loya committed professional misconduct in violation of Rules 1.15(a)(3) and 3.03(a)(1) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. Loya was ordered to pay $10,525.12 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses. Loya had until February 13, 2016, to file an appeal.
RESIGNATIONSOn March 22, 2016, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation in lieu of discipline of Carrie Beth Crisp [#24074093], 34, of San Marcos. At the time of her resignation, there was one disciplinary matter pending, alleging Crisp accepted or continued employment beyond her competence, continued the representation when her own interest adversely limited her ability to represent her client, neglected the client matter and made false statements to the client about the work that had been performed, and failed to return the client file. Crisp violated Rules 1.01(a), 1.01(b)(1), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(3).
On March 22, 2016, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation in lieu of discipline of Jennie R. Mathis [#00793647], 57, of Arlington. At the time of Mathis’s resignation, there were two pending matters. In the first matter, in May 2014, the complainant hired Mathis in a family law matter. Mathis neglected the case and failed to communicate. In the second matter, in 2006, the complainant hired Mathis in connection with a divorce. A final divorce decree was signed in 2010. Mathis failed to prepare and file a final order awarding the house to the complainant. Finally, Mathis failed to respond to the notice of complaint.
On March 22, 2016, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation in lieu of discipline of Anirudh D. Sarwal [#24002895], 42, of Austin. At the time of Sarwal’s resignation, a judgment in a criminal case had been entered in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, wherein Sarwal pled guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud and was committed to the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a total term of 57 months and ordered upon release from imprisonment to be on supervised release for a term of two years. Sarwal was further ordered to pay an assessment in the amount of $100 and restitution in the amount of $13,461,604.31. This conviction would subject Sarwal to compulsory discipline.
SUSPENSIONSOn January 11, 2016, Johnnie Lee Almon Jr. [#24043533], 48, of Fort Worth, received a two-year fully probated suspension effective February 1, 2016. In November 2009, complainants hired Almon in a personal injury matter. Almon neglected the legal matter entrusted to him, failed to keep the complainants informed of the status of their case, and engaged in conduct involving misrepresentation. Almon violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(b), and 8.04(a)(3). He was ordered to pay $950 in restitution and $1,232 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On November 13, 2015, Jose Angel Becerra [#24026790], 41, of Laredo, received a one-year and 15-day partially probated suspension effective November 18, 2015, with the first 15 days actively served and the remainder probated (August 23, 2017, to August 22, 2018). The District 12 Grievance Committee found that Becerra failed to hold client funds separate from his own property, failed to promptly deliver an accounting to his client, failed to return an unearned fee, and failed to respond to the grievance. Becerra violated Rules 1.14(a), 1.14(b), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $39,922.50 in restitution and $12,412 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On November 10, 2015, Garry Philip Cantrell [#00789200], 57, of Dallas, received a two-year active suspension effective November 10, 2015. The 193rd Judicial District Court of Dallas County found that Cantrell violated Rules 1.04(d) [a contingent fee agreement shall be in writing and shall state the method by which the fee is to be determined], 1.14(b) [upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or third person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person and promptly deliver to the client or third person any funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled to receive], 3.01 [a lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless the lawyer reasonably believes that there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous], and 4.04(b)(2) [a lawyer shall not present civil charges against a complainant, a witness, or a potential witness in a bar disciplinary proceeding solely to prevent participation by the complainant, witness, or potential witness therein]. Cantrell was ordered to pay $15,211.57 in restitution, $4,821.50 in attorneys’ fees, and $530.45 in direct expenses.
On January 26, 2016, Cynthia Rachelle Wil Cole [#24035579], 42, of Rockwall, agreed to a one-year probated suspension effective February 1, 2016. The District 6 Grievance Committee found that on or about June 1, 2012, Cole filed a civil lawsuit that was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. By filing such suit, Cole brought a proceeding, or asserted an issue therein, that Cole did not reasonably believe had a basis for doing so that was not frivolous. Furthermore, Cole, in the same civil action, failed to comply with orders of the court. Cole’s noncompliance unreasonably increased the costs and burdens of the action and unreasonably delayed resolution of the matter. Cole violated Rules 3.01 and 3.02. She was ordered to pay $1,750 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On December 21, 2015, Angel Ottoniel Cruz [#24048412], 40, of Irving, received a 12-month partially probated suspension effective January 1, 2016, with the first three months actively served and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that in representing the complainant in an immigration matter, Cruz neglected the legal matter entrusted to him by failing to comply with requests for more information for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Cruz failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information from the complainant about the status of his immigration matter. Upon termination of representation, Cruz failed to refund advance payments of fees that had not been earned. Cruz failed to timely furnish to the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel a response or other information as required by the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure and did not in good faith timely assert a privilege or other legal ground for his failure to do so. Cruz violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $600 in restitution and $1,151.50 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On February 18, 2016, Keith F. Ellis [#00790642], 59, of Vidor, received an 18-month partially probated suspension effective March 13, 2016, with the first six months actively suspended and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 3 Grievance Committee found that Ellis neglected a probate matter, failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of the probate matter, and failed to promptly comply with his client’s reasonable requests for information. Upon his termination, the respondent failed to refund advance payments of fees that had not been earned. The respondent also failed to respond to the grievance. Ellis violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $2,500 in restitution and $1,770 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On March 2, 2016, Robert E. Fitzgerald [#07088700], 65, of Dallas, received a five-year partially probated suspension effective February 1, 2016, with the first two years actively suspended and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that in representing the complainant, Fitzgerald neglected the legal matter entrusted to him. Fitzgerald also failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed about the status of her case and promptly comply with her reasonable requests for information. Furthermore, Fitzgerald misrepresented information to the complainant about her case. Fitzgerald violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), and 8.04(a)(3). He was ordered to pay $1,722.50 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On January 6, 2016, Robert James Hayes [#24057610], 43, of San Antonio, accepted a three-month fully probated suspension effective March 1, 2016. The District 10 Grievance Committee found that Hayes neglected a client matter, failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, and failed to refund unearned fees. Hayes violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), and 1.15(d). He was ordered to pay $1,500 in restitution and $800 in attorneys’ fees.
On January 14, 2016, Alfred L. Isassi [#24010124], 43, of Kingsville, accepted a four-month fully probated suspension effective February 1, 2016. The District 11 Grievance Committee found that Isassi communicated about the subject matter of the representation with someone represented by counsel. Isassi violated Rule 4.02(a) and was ordered to pay $800 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On January 21, 2016, Matthew Scott Jones [#24002374], 43, of Austin, accepted a one-year probated suspension effective January 1, 2016. An evidentiary panel of the District 9 Grievance Committee found that the complainant hired Jones in April of 2014 to convert a California corporation into a Texas corporation. The complainant paid Jones $4,600, which included the necessary filing fees. Jones completed the required documents but failed to file them with the Texas secretary of state or with the appropriate California entity. After July of 2014, the complainant was unable to contact Jones to ascertain the status of the matter. Jones failed to complete the work for which the complainant had hired him. Jones did not return either the unearned fees or the filing fees of $671.88 that the complainant paid. Jones violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.14(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(1). He was ordered to pay $2,600 in restitution and $284.17 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On February 21, 2016, Robert M. Jones [#10951000], 71, of Duncanville, received a two-year active suspension effective March 1, 2016. The 68th Judicial District Court of Dallas County found that Jones violated Rules 1.01(b)(1) [prohibiting a lawyer from neglecting a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer], and 1.03(a) [requiring a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information]. Jones was ordered to pay $2,494.50 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On March 28, 2016, George Gregory Lake [#24081565], 29, of Marshall, received a 36-month partially probated suspension effective March 23, 2016, with the first 18 months actively suspended and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 1 Grievance Committee found that in representing the complainant in connection with a criminal law matter, Lake neglected the legal matter en-trusted to him by failing to provide legal services. Lake failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed about the status of his criminal matter, failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information from the complainant about his criminal matter, and, upon termination of the representation, failed to refund advance payments of fees that had not been earned. Lake violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $2,000 in restitution and $1,137.25 in attorneys’ fees. Lake had until April 27, 2016, to file an appeal.
On February 24, 2016, Douglas Matthew McMaster [#13786020], 53, of Brownsville, accepted a 27-month fully probated suspension effective March 1, 2016. The District 12 Grievance Committee found that McMaster neglected client legal matters, failed to promptly comply with reasonable re-quests for information, and failed to respond to one grievance. McMaster violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), and 8.04(a)(8). He was or-dered to pay $600 in restitution and $1,000 in attorneys’ fees.
On February 9, 2016, Laura Gayle Nelson [#14903550], 56, of Seguin, accepted a one-year fully probated suspension effective February 22, 2016. The District 15 Grievance Committee found that Nelson failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, failed to hold client funds separate from her own property, and engaged in the practice of law while her law license was administratively suspended. Nelson violated Rules 1.03(a), 1.14(a), and 8.04(a)(11). She was ordered to pay $2,537.85 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On January 20, 2016, Marcus D. Norman [#24007759], 45, of McKinney, received a one-year partially probated suspension effective January 15, 2016, with the first three months actively suspended and the remainder probated. The 417th Judicial District Court of Collin County found that Norman committed professional misconduct by violating Rule 1.03(a) [failed to keep complainant reasonably informed about the status of the case and failed to promptly comply with complainant’s reasonable request for information]. Norman was ordered to pay $1,500 in restitution and $1,000 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On February 5, 2016, Amanda Marie Payton [#24079117], 29, of Plano, received a 24-month partially probated suspension, with one month active (February 15, 2016, through March 14, 2016) and 23 months probated (March 15, 2016, through February 14, 2018). An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that Payton engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation. Payton violated Rule 8.04(a)(3). She was ordered to pay $1,800 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On January 12, 2016, Benjamin Robert Peppard [#24083647], 31, of Fort Worth, received an 18-month probated suspension effective January 6, 2016. The District 7 Grievance Committee found that, in representing the complainant in a contract dispute, Peppard neglected the legal matter entrusted to him by failing to perform any legal services. Peppard failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed about the status of the contract dispute and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information from the complainant about the contract dispute. Upon termination of representation, Peppard failed to surrender papers and property to which the complainant was entitled. Peppard violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), and 1.15(d). He was ordered to pay $1,000 in restitution, $2,525 in attorneys’ fees, and $699.50 in direct expenses.
On January 22, 2016, Harold Brandon Price [#24049263], 44, of Dallas, received a fully probated suspension for a period of six months beginning March 1, 2016. An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that Price neglected a legal matter entrusted to him by his client and failed to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of her legal matter and failed to promptly comply with the client’s reasonable requests for information regarding the case. Price violated Rules 1.01(b)(1) and 1.03(a). He was ordered to pay $3,109.50 in attorneys’ fees and $890.50 in direct expenses.
On January 22, 2016, Kelvin Lernard Roquemore [#24002867], 48, of Dallas, received a 24-month partially probated suspension effective February 1, 2016, with the first six months actively suspended and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that on or about February 3, 2012, the complainant hired Roquemore for representation in a civil matter. Roquemore failed to hold funds belonging to the complainant separate from Roquemore’s own property. Roquemore failed to keep funds that belonged to the complainant in a separate trust account. Upon receiving funds in which the complainant had an interest, Roquemore failed to promptly notify the complainant. Roquemore failed to promptly deliver to the complainant funds that the complainant was entitled to receive. Roquemore violated Rules 1.14(a), 1.14(b), and 1.14(c). He was ordered to pay $2,287 in restitution, $3,000 in attorneys’ fees, and $483.50 in direct expenses. Roquemore did not file an appeal.
On December 10, 2015, Brian Wade Rogers [#24041811], 40, of Victoria, received a one-year partially probated suspension effective December 9, 2015, with the first month actively served and the remainder probated. The District 11 Grievance Committee found that Rogers neglected a client matter, failed to keep a client reasonably informed, failed to promptly render a full accounting, failed to return unearned fees, and failed to return the client file. Rogers violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a)(b), 1.14(b), and 1.15(d). He was ordered to pay $4,000 in restitution and $2,132.10 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On December 29, 2015, Kimberly A. Stovall [#19337000], 53, of Dallas, received a 12-month partially probated suspension effective December 20, 2015. An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that Stovall failed to hold funds belonging in whole or in part to clients or third persons that were in Stovall’s possession in connection with the representation separate from Stovall’s own property. Stovall had direct supervisory authority over a non-lawyer assistant and failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the assistant’s conduct was compatible with the professional obligations of Stovall. Stovall violated Rules 1.14(a) and 5.03. She was ordered to pay $6,448.50 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On February 10, 2016, Staci Jennifer Strong [#24037564], 43, of Dallas, agreed to 30 months of probated suspension effective March 1, 2016. The District 6 Grievance Committee found that Strong failed to keep funds belonging in whole or in part to the complainant separate from her own property. Upon receiving funds in which the complainant had an interest, Strong failed to promptly notify the complainant. Strong failed to promptly deliver to the complainant funds that the complainant was entitled to receive. Strong engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, de- ceit, or misrepresentation. Strong violated Rules 1.14(a), 1.14(b), and 8.04(a)(3). She was ordered to pay $25,359.67 in restitution and $2,000 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On December 16, 2015, Roger Mathew Tafel [#19607775], 53, of Euless, received a five-year active suspension effective December 2, 2015. An evidentiary panel of the District 7 Grievance Committee found that the complainant hired Tafel for representation in a personal injury matter. Tafel later represented the complainant in a credit matter. Tafel failed to communicate with the complainant and failed to file a response to the grievance. Tafel violated Rules 1.03(a) and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $1,488 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On January 11, 2016, Robert J. Truhill [#20254500], 70, of El Paso, accepted a 12-month fully probated suspension effective April 15, 2016. The District 17 Grievance Committee found that Truhill neglected a client matter, failed to keep the client reasonably informed, upon termination failed to return unearned fees, engaged in conduct involving misrepresentation, failed to comply with a prior disciplinary judgment, and failed to respond to the grievance in a timely manner. Truhill violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.03(b), 1.15(d), 8.01(b), 8.04(a)(3), 8.04(a)(7), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $1,000 in restitution and $1,350 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On January 6, 2016, Winston N. Udeh [#20369640], 54, of Dallas, agreed to a three-month probated suspension effective January 15, 2016. The District 6 Grievance Committee found that in representing the complainant, Udeh neglected the legal matter entrusted to him, failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed about the status of a matter, and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. Upon termination of representation, Udeh failed to refund payments of fees. Udeh failed to timely furnish to the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel a response or other information as required by the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Udeh did not in good faith timely assert a privilege or other legal ground for his failure to do so. Udeh violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $100 in restitution and $450 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
PUBLIC REPRIMANDSOn February 10, 2016, Michael Andrew Casey [#03958700], 60, of Arlington, received an agreed judgment of public reprimand. An evidentiary panel of the District 7 Grievance Committee found that Casey failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed about the status of his civil matter. Casey violated Rule 1.03(a). He was ordered to pay $713.25 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On February 8, 2016, Kelley Elise Cash [#24001852], 43, of Dallas, received a public reprimand. An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that Cash engaged in the practice of law when her right to practice had been administratively suspended for failure to timely pay required fees or assessments. Cash violated Rule 8.04(a)(11). She was ordered to pay $750 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On December 17, 2015, Frank A. Denena II [#00785815], 57, of Franklin, received an agreed judgment of public reprimand. An evidentiary panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that in representing the complainant, Denena neglected the legal matter entrusted to him. In addition, Denena failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed about the status of his matter and promptly comply with his reasonable requests for information. Denena violated Rules 1.01(b)(1) and 1.03(a). He was ordered to pay $1,000 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On February 8, 2016, Viney K. Gupta [#00790085], 67, of Orange, California, accepted a public reprimand. An evidentiary panel of the District 9 Grievance Committee found that while representing a client in an immigration case, Gupta failed to properly calendar a final hearing, failed to contact the court for additional information, and failed to attend the final hearing. Gupta violated Rules 1.01(b)(1) and 8.04(a)(1). She was ordered to pay $6,103.10 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On December 15, 2015, Sandra D. Laurel [#11996800], 51, of San Antonio, accepted a judgment of public reprimand. The District 10 Grievance Committee found that Laurel failed to promptly deliver funds to parties entitled to receive funds and failed to hold the client’s funds separate from her personal property. Laurel violated Rules 1.14(a) and 1.14(b). She was ordered to pay $3,675 in restitution and $800 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
Full Article & Source:
51 Texas Lawyers & Judges Disciplined March-May
Nursing home worker sought for alleged abuse
A former employee who handled patients at Golden Hill Nursing Home allegedly tormented and abused dementia patients in her care.
Ashley Nicole Wilcox, 21, of 2087 Martin Road, is facing criminal charges in connection with the alleged offenses. She is wanted by police, and a warrant has been issued for her arrest.
New Castle police filed a criminal complaint in court Monday against Wilcox, alleging she was rough with patients who reportedly had severe dementia. In one instance, she reportedly had put a sock in one woman's mouth. An employee reported that incident had occurred on Feb. 29.
Staff members told police that Wilcox also placed her hand over the same woman's mouth and nose during the week of Jan. 31 through Feb. 6, and she yelled at the resident to shut up, the paperwork said. A staff member reported that she had to push Wilcox away from the woman to get her to stop, the court papers allege.
The staff members also related that Wilcox pinched a male patient's nipples because he grabbed her arm. During the same incident, Wilcox pulled the patient's shirt up around his neck and mouth and asked him, "can you breathe?" while telling the man to let go of her arm, the police report said. Staff members reported that Wilcox allegedly choked the man and covered his face with his shirt to a point where he could not breathe and was screaming at him, police reported from accounts of staff witnesses.
A staff member told police that Wilcox had been rough with one male patient while walking him down the hall to his room, and that she pushed the man into his bed when he grabbed her arm. The staff member reported that Wilcox twisted one of the man's fingers to get him to let go and that he was saying, "ow, let go," and she grabbed his wrists and pushed them into his chest, the police account states.
Another staff member described an incident around mid-January where Wilcox allegedly placed both hands over a woman's mouth and approached her from behind while the woman was sitting in a chair. Wilcox forced the woman's head back in the chair and her hands were tight over her mouth for about 30 seconds and Wilcox was laughing, the staff member reported, according to allegations in the court papers.
In yet another incident, a worker reported that Wilcox, around Feb. 6 or 7, removed the dentures of a woman with severe dementia, and the woman, who doesn't like her dentures removed, tried to bite Wilcox. The worker said that Wilcox took the woman's hand and shoved it into her mouth and as the woman was struggling with Wilcox, the court papers say.
Wilcox is facing four counts of stalking with intent to cause emotional distress and six counts each of simple assault and harassment.
Police were alerted March 10 about the incidents after three employees approached a supervisor about Wilcox abusing patients. They related the incidents to the supervisor on March 8, according to the police report. The police interviewed the supervisor and administrator Mark Nord about the matter and obtained written statements that had been gathered from the suspect and witnesses during the nursing home's internal investigation.
According to the police report, Wilcox initially was suspended from her job in March after the nursing home had initiated its own internal investigation, and Wilcox had given a written statement to the nursing home, denying all allegations.
Nord said Wednesday that Wilcox no longer works there. (Continue Reading)
Full Article & Source:
Nursing home worker sought for alleged abuse
Thursday, May 5, 2016
Is Britney Spears Ready to Stand on Her Own?
LAS VEGAS — The disturbing images seem so distant now: the pop-star-turned-cautionary tabloid tale — head shorn, face twisted, umbrella gripped like a police baton as she bashed a paparazzi S.U.V. window. More than eight years after her meltdown, Britney Spears, at 34, appears to be thriving.
In September, she announced a two-year, $35 million deal to extend her residency at Planet Hollywood Resort & Casino here. Forbes named her the fifth-highest-earning female musician of 2015, ahead of powerhouses like Rihanna and Nicki Minaj. And she’s been hard at work on her ninth studio album, expected this year.
With her television guest spots and a wildly popular, often eccentric Instagram feed featuring her toned abs and adorable sons, Ms. Spears looks like that rare celebrity who has vanquished deep travails to snatch a second chance.
“I’m in a real good place in my life,” Ms. Spears told People magazine last year, in an interview about her personal life. “I’m the happiest I’ve ever been.”
Ms. Spears’s team presents her onstage as fully in control, and backstage, as the mastermind of her show, an artist in top form. But that view seems at odds with the conclusions routinely drawn about her at probate court in Los Angeles, where an undisclosed mental illness and substance abuse led her family to take action in 2008.
Since then, Ms. Spears’s life has been controlled by a court-approved conservatorship, known in other states as a guardianship, designed for people who cannot take care of themselves.
According to the arrangement, which is typically used to protect the old, the mentally disabled or the extremely ill, Ms. Spears cannot make key decisions, personal or financial, without the approval of her conservators: her father, Jamie Spears, and a lawyer, Andrew M. Wallet. Her most mundane purchases, from a drink at Starbucks to a song on iTunes, are tracked in court documents as part of the plan to safeguard the great fortune she has earned but does not ultimately control.
While the conservators are widely credited with rescuing Ms. Spears’s career — and her life — her apparent stability and success could belie the need for continuing restrictions.
There are recent signs, in fact, that the conservators are now acknowledging the great progress she has made. After successfully fighting to keep her from testifying in at least three prior lawsuits — (a probate judge had previously agreed that doing so could cause her “irreparable harm”) — Ms. Spears’s conservators allowed her to testify on Monday in a case filed against her by a former self-described manager. They agreed that “giving such testimony is not likely to cause harm to her,” according to court papers.
Could this be the start of a major unfastening of the strictures she lives under? (Continue Reading)
Full Article & Source:
Is Britney Spears Ready to Stand on Her Own?
Maine Woman Testifies at Senate Alzheimer’s Hearing
According to some estimates it’s the third leading cause of death in the U.S. and, if current trends continue, Alzheimer’s disease could effect as many as 16 million Americans by the year 2050.
During a hearing before the U.S. Senate Aging Committee on Wednesday, U.S. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who chairs the committee, said Alzheimer’s is the nation’s costliest disease, with the U.S. spending more than $236 billion on it per year.
The hearing was called to explore how much progress has been made in combating Alzheimer’s since the enactment, in 2011, of the National Alzheimer’s Project Act, co-authored by Collins.
Among those testifying was Polly Bradley, director of adult day services at the Southern Maine Agency on Aging in Scarborough. Bradley says that since 2012, her agency has developed two state-of-the-art adult day centers and shifted to a person-centered medical model designed to be affordable.
“Family caregivers tell us that their loved ones are happier,” she says. “They come home from the centers wanting to talk about their day. They refer to our centers as their club, which makes them eager to return. Our program extends to the caregivers because we know that it can be a lonely and depressing journey for all of them.”
Bradley says that, on a more personal note, she was blessed to have spent the last ten years caring for her father, who had frontal lobe dementia and died in December.
Full Article & Source:
Maine Woman Testifies at Senate Alzheimer’s Hearing
Alzheimer's Foundation of America Addresses Senate Aging Committee
NEW YORK, NY--(Marketwired - April 07, 2016) - The Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA), a nonprofit organization that unites more than 2,400 member organizations nationwide with the goal of providing optimal care and services to individuals living with dementia, and to their caregivers and families, issued the following statement at yesterday's Senate Special Committee on Aging's hearing on Alzheimer's disease. Earlier this year, AFA called for an additional $1 billion to be appropriated for Alzheimer's research in the federal budget for fiscal year 2017 (FY'17). The Foundation also requested $40 million in enhanced investments for caregiver supports and services in FY'17. Charles J. Fuschillo, Jr., AFA's president and chief executive officer:
"I want to express my gratitude to the Senate Special Committee on Aging and to Chairwoman Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Ranking Member McCaskill (D-Mo.) for holding this hearing, 'Finding a Cure: Assessing Progress Toward the Goal of Ending Alzheimer's by 2025,' and shining a spotlight on the devastating impact of this brain disorder on American families.
"AFA is also grateful for the progress made in funding clinical research with a historic increase of $350 million in Alzheimer's disease research funding for the National Institutes of Health contained in last year's budget.
"Yet, we need to build further upon this success. The National Plan to Address Alzheimer's Disease sets a goal of finding a cure or disease-modifying treatment by 2025. Leading research scientists have said that at least $2 billion a year in research funding is needed if we are to achieve the 2025 mandate. For this reason, AFA is calling for an additional $1 billion dollars in spending on Alzheimer's disease research at NIH in the FY'17 budget to ensure sufficient resources are appropriated if we are going to achieve the lofty, but achievable goal."
In addition, AFA is requesting a $40 million increase for caregiver supports and services provided by the Administration for Community Living (ACL). ACL programs fund Alzheimer's disease demonstration grants, case management, respite care and caregiver training and support under the Alzheimer's Disease Initiative. Such services are crucial in helping caregivers cope with daily challenges of the disease and helps individuals living with Alzheimer's disease have better health outcomes and can delay the need for costly nursing home placement -- two things that save precious government resources. AFA also requested $5 million go to the Department of Justice in FY'17 to fund the Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program.
"As the face of care for individuals and their families who are affected by Alzheimer's disease and related illnesses, AFA looks forward to working with the Special Committee on Aging and our friends in the Senate in making the fight eradicating this devastating disease a national priority."
About Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA):
The Alzheimer's Foundation of America, based in New York, is a non-profit organization that unites more than 2,400 member organizations nationwide with the goal of providing optimal care and services to individuals confronting dementia, and to their caregivers and families. Its services include a national, toll-free helpline (866-232-8484) staffed by licensed social workers, educational materials, a free quarterly magazine for caregivers and "AFA Partners in Care" dementia care training for healthcare professionals. For more information about AFA, call 866-232-8484, visit www.alzfdn.org, follow us on Twitter, or connect with us on Facebook.
Source:
Alzheimer's Foundation of America Addresses Senate Aging Committee
Wednesday, May 4, 2016
South Dakota Wrongly Puts Thousands in Nursing Homes, Government Says
WASHINGTON — When patients in South Dakota seek help for serious but manageable disabilities such as severe diabetes, blindness or mental illness, the answer is often the same: With few alternatives available, they end up in nursing homes or long-term care facilities, whether they need such care or not.
In a scathing rebuke of the state’s health care system, the Justice Department said on Monday that thousands of patients were being held unnecessarily in sterile, highly restrictive group homes. That is discrimination, it said, making South Dakota the latest target of a federal effort to protect the civil rights of people with disabilities and mental illnesses, outlined in a Supreme Court decision 17 years ago.
The Obama administration has opened more than 50 such investigations and reached settlements with eight states. One investigation, into Florida’s treatment of children with disabilities, ended in a lawsuit over policies that placed those children in nursing homes. With its report Monday, the Justice Department signaled that it might also sue South Dakota.
While the administration has received widespread attention for investigating police abuses and supporting the rights of gay and transgender people, the Justice Department has also steadily made these cases part of its civil rights agenda. The government says that those efforts have allowed more than 53,000 Americans with disabilities to leave institutions or avoid them altogether. It is a small number compared with the 250,000 working-age people who are estimated to be needlessly living in nursing homes, but advocates say the federal campaign has had significant effects.
“There has been as much of a revolution in enforcing disability rights since 2009 as there has been for any other group in the county,” said Talley Wells, a disability lawyer with the Atlanta Legal Aid Society.
There are more than 1.7 million nursing beds in the United States, and many Americans require round-the-clock care and the protection of a nursing home. But for untold numbers of others — with mental illnesses, developmental disabilities or chronic diseases — the confines of a nursing home can be unnecessarily isolating. Yet when patients seek help paying for long-term care, states often steer them toward nursing homes, even though it may not be needed.
One 45-year-old South Dakota man with diabetes told Justice Department investigators that he wished he could be at home with his wife and daughter, but was in a nursing home because he needed help moving around his house on one leg.
A 73-year-old man in a wheelchair told investigators that he was in a nursing home against his will. “Some of these places are warehouses,” he said, according to the report.
With help, the Justice Department said, such people could live at home, hold jobs and lead productive lives. Instead, they are confined and segregated from society. Many cannot leave the grounds of their institutions without supervision or perform tasks such as shopping for groceries or cooking meals. One resident told investigators that when friends visited to take him for a car ride, “they have to sign me out, like a kid.”
“These are real issues that more and more people are going to be confronting with our graying population,” said Vanita Gupta, the Justice Department’s top civil rights lawyer.
The Justice Department’s efforts are rooted in a 1999 Supreme Court decision, Olmstead v. L.C. The court ruled that, unless a nursing home is medically necessary, people have a right under the Americans With Disabilities Act to receive care without being segregated from society. Advocates for the disabled have compared that ruling to Brown v. Board of Education, which declared racial segregation in schools unconstitutional. As was the case after that decision, however, change was not immediate.
President George W. Bush issued an executive order in 2001 telling the federal government to work with states to meet the Supreme Court’s decree. During his administration, the Justice Department opened several cases over the living conditions in public nursing homes.
Under President Obama, the department changed its strategy. Rather than focusing on living conditions, the authorities asked whether residents should be confined in the first place.
Since then, officials have created a new body of civil rights law. Rhode Island agreed to end a decades-old system that had kept people with developmental disabilities segregated in adult day programs and to help them find jobs, rather than confining them to low-paying workshops. Oregon did the same last year. The Justice Department has filed documents on behalf of children with mental illnesses in West Virginia and people with developmental disabilities in Indiana.
States have been trying for years to increase in-home care, which is often cheaper than putting someone in a nursing home. “What we’re seeing now is the feds’ involvement, and the courts’,” said Debra Miller, director of health policy for the Council of State Governments. “States are all looking to move in this direction. It’s just a question of how fast you can go.”
Dennis Daugaard, South Dakota’s governor, said that his state had made progress but that, with such a sparse population, it faced problems not shared by more urban areas.
“Ideally, we want elderly residents and people with disabilities to be able to stay in their communities and receive the services they need without going to a nursing home,” Mr. Daugaard said in a statement. “That can be a challenge for a state like ours, which is made up of rural communities.”
The Justice Department, however, said South Dakota was not trying hard enough to address a problem it has known about for years. In 2013, it spent $133 million in Medicaid money on nursing homes and $27 million on in-home care, the department said.
In-home health aides can be less expensive than nursing homes because they do not provide unnecessary services. States, though, face a chicken-or-egg conundrum. Does money go to nursing homes because beds are often more readily available than in-home services? Or are there fewer in-home services because less Medicaid money is spent on them? And nursing homes have little financial incentive to encourage patients to seek in-home care, Ms. Miller said.
Mr. Wells, the Atlanta lawyer, said the legal fight was both shaping public opinion and reflecting it. A few years ago, when the Justice Department began aggressively taking on state governments, “you could just feel this movement,” he said. He added that patients deserved options that allowed them to remain part of society.
“It’s what all of us would want for our family members,” he said. “When we need that level of service, do we want that in our homes or do we want that in an institution?”
Full Article & Source:
South Dakota Wrongly Puts Thousands in Nursing Homes, Government Says
Pro bono spotlight: Attorneys honored for outstanding pro bono service
Troy Michael Farquhar, Tom Harper, Imani Boykin, Hollyn Foster and Aaron Irving |
At the 17th annual Robert J. Beckham Equal Justice Awards on April 20, six pro bono attorneys were honored.
They were selected not only for their number of volunteer hours, but also for the depth of their involvement in civil legal services to low-income people and for the variety of ways they serve.
The awards are presented annually by Jacksonville Area Legal Aid.
Those recognized represent hundreds more attorneys who assist with clinics, projects and case representation.
This year’s honorees are:
• Imani Boykin participates at all levels of pro bono service, from leadership and program design to direct client assistance.
She is a member of the Northeast Florida Medical Legal Partnership Advisory Board and the 4th Circuit Pro Bono Committee.
Boykin, a military veteran, has helped launch estate planning intake night events and the Veterans Legal Collaborative. She participates in Ask-A-Lawyer and Lawyers in Libraries.
Her firm, The Law Office of Imani Boykin, sponsors the advance directives for seniors events.
• Troy Farquhar established the firm Integrity Law shortly after graduating from law school.
From its beginnings, he ensured that pro bono representation was part of the practice and has accepted family law, guardianship, probate and estate planning matters.
In addition to representing clients, Farquhar is a presenter at the monthly family law group information clinics, Lawyers in Libraries and in community outreach events.
Integrity Law has been a sponsoring firm of the “JALA Fun Day” staff retreat.
• Hollyn Foster has fortified pro bono service in Northeast Florida on many fronts.
She participates in the intake nights at the City Rescue Mission implemented by The Christian Legal Society.
Foster offers counsel at the advance directives for seniors events and has served as an advising attorney at estate planning intake night.
She is a presenter for Lawyers in Libraries and serves as a resource for other pro bono attorneys.
Foster represents clients primarily in probate, guardianship and estate planning.
She is an attorney with Slott, Barker & Nussbaum.
• Tom Harper is a dedicated pro bono attorney who has represented clients with employment issues such as overtime, wage/hour and wage payment claims and employment discrimination.
He participates in the City Rescue Mission intake nights, providing assistance on behalf of JALA for clients in the LifeBuilders program.
Harper is a presenter for Lawyers in Libraries and an advising attorney at Ask-A-Lawyer events.
His firm is The Law and Mediation Offices of Tom Harper.
• Aaron Irving provides pro bono assistance to clients and in group settings.
He makes it his practice to have at least one active pro bono case and usually has several in the areas of family law, estate planning, probate and seal/expunge.
Irving volunteers in Ask-A-Lawyer, Lawyers in Libraries, the Veterans Legal Collaborative and community outreach events.
A partner with the Integrity Law firm, Irving has supported the JALA staff retreat.
• Judi Setzer maintains an ongoing pro bono caseload and during her career has represented clients in the areas of adoption, guardianship, estate planning, and foreclosure.
She is another of the core group of attorneys in the Christian Legal Society who established and continues to implement intake nights at the City Rescue Mission for clients in the LifeBuilders program.
Setzer has provided leadership on the 4th Circuit Pro Bono Committee and The Jacksonville Bar Association Pro Bono Committee. She is a partner at the Law Firm of Short & Setzer.
We applaud the contributions of these attorneys, as well as the work of so many others
Thank you all for providing legal representation to those who cannot always afford to pay.
Attorneys interested in pro bono opportunities are encouraged to contact kathy.para@jaxlegalaid.org.
Full Article & Source:
Pro bono spotlight: Attorneys honored for outstanding pro bono service
Elder abuse legislation moves forward, would require tougher background checks
Click to view video |
The bill would require background checks for people who work directly with patients, including employees of home care organizations, before they’re hired. Currently, employees have a 10-day window to secure background checks after they’re hired. Sponsor Rep. Dale Carr (R-District 12) says by then, the harm is already done.
In addition, the legislation would pave the way for more cooperation among agencies to reduce and respond to elder abuse.
“It just puts all of the agencies working together until we come up with one common ground that is to protect our elderly and get rid of this elder abuse,” Rep. Carr said. “(The elderly) are really going to benefit from this.”
The background checks and cooperation are among the eight recommendations the state’s Elder Abuse Task Force presented earlier this year. Lawmakers created the task force after a 2013 Community Watchdog investigation into the state’s abuse problem.
“Sometimes they’re afraid to say anything, because that’s all the help they got, but we want them to know if they feel like they’re being abused now or feel like they’re being neglected, speak out,” Rep. Carr said. “We won’t let anybody come back on them.”
Source:
Elder abuse legislation moves forward, would require tougher background checks
Tuesday, May 3, 2016
Man dies in Pinellas nursing home, possible abuse investigated
PINELLAS PARK, FL (WFLA) – A resident at the local nursing home died at the hospital Saturday. Now Pinellas Park Police detectives are investigating if this was a case of abuse.
It happened at the Gracewood Nursing Home located at 8600 U.S. Highway 19 North in Pinellas Park. About 10 p.m. Saturday PPPD officers were informed by paramedics that a resident at the facility who was possibly a victim of abuse was taken to a hospital.
According to the initial report, the 65-year-old man may have been left outside in the sun for a long time. He had second-degree burns with blisters and was suffering from dehydration. Paramedics said he went into a cardiac failure and died.
Pinellas Park PD detectives are now investigating what exactly had happened at the nursing home. They are working to determine if any abuse has occurred and whether or not it contributed to the man’s death.
The victim, Wilbert Henry Moten, had no relatives, only a guardian appointed to him.
The Department of Children and Families was notified and will also be involved in the investigation.
The facility has been fined five times in the last 10 years for various violations, including a failure to file a nursing home renewal application on time, failure to provide an accurate assessment of dental hygiene and access to dental care, failure to ensure the mechanical lifts function properly and others.
Stay with WFLA for more on this developing story.
Full Article & Source:
Man dies in Pinellas nursing home, possible abuse investigated
How Corrupt Is America's Judicial System?
A recent watchdog report found that almost half of Americans polled believe that the U.S. justice system is corrupt. Many who hold this belief likely turn to a host of recent scandals involving judges being bribed.
Source:
How Corrupt Is America's Judicial System?
Source:
How Corrupt Is America's Judicial System?
Roger Talking About Attorney Howard Reiner
Roger being held against his will under Harris County Probate Court 4 and attorney Howard Reiner:
Source:
Roger Talking About Attorney Howard Reiner
Source:
Roger Talking About Attorney Howard Reiner
Monday, May 2, 2016
Songwriter's Home Up for Sale at Steep Increase
By Walter F. Roche Jr.
The Belle Meade home that songwriter Danny Tate lost in the midst of his battle to get out of a court-ordered conservatorship is now on the market for more than five times the amount his one-time lawyer paid for it in 2012.
The 3-bedroom home at 5909 Old Harding Pike is being advertised for $649,900 by local real estate agents.
Tate's one-time lawyer Michael Hoskins of Nashville purchased the home in September of 2012 at a court ordered auction. The sale had been ordered to pay off, at least in part, Tate's legal bills amassed in his years-long battle to end his conservatorship.
Michael Hoskins |
Hoskins and Nashville attorney Paul Housch were the only bidders at the Sept. 18, 2012 auction for Tate's house held on the steps of the Nashville courthouse. Housch was also seeking payment for legal services at the time.
Hoskins did not respond to questions about the sale.
The advertisement for Tate's former home lists its three bedrooms and 2.5 baths and a .84 acre lot.
The one-floor home has 2,801 square feet. The property is assessed for $232,100, according to Metro records.
Tate was placed in a conservatorship without his knowledge after his brother filed an emergency petition in Davidson Probate Court on Oct. 19, 2007.
Tate said he learned that his former home was up for sale when he drove by it recently and saw a for sale sign.
Tate has disputed the legal fees assessed against him during and after the conservatorship and filed a complaint against Hoskins with the state board that licenses attorneys.
Tate was one of several witnesses to testify at a series of hearings conducted by the Tennessee Bar Association on problems with the handling of conservatorships in Tennessee. The hearings led to a several amendments to the law, with many of the changes focused on emergency petitions like the one filed against Tate.
A noted songwriter, Tate has also seen the royalties from his songs tied up in litigation stemming from the conservatorship. Hoskins was seeking to attach those same royalties when the bankruptcy case was filed.
Contact:wfrochejr999@gmail.com
Davidson Assessor
GENERAL PROPERTY INFORMATION
- Map & Parcel: 129 04 0 076.00
- Location: 5909 OLD HARDING PIKE
- Current Owner: HOSKINS, MICHAEL G.
- Mailing Address: 5909 OLD HARDING PIKE, NASHVILLE, TN 37205
- Legal Description: LOT 1 LONGVIEW SUB
- Tax District: USD View Tax Record
- Assessment Classification*: RES
- Legal Reference: 20151001-0099719 View Deed
- Sale Date: 09/22/2015
- Sale Price: $0
MAP TOOLS
Songwriter's Home Up for Sale at Steep Increase
See Also:
Danny Tate
Danny Tate's Home Auctioned Off --- to his Former Lawyer!
Suit alleges woman, 89, victim of mortgage fraud: County officials, private attorneys combat elder abuse
Attorneys representing an elderly Menlo Park woman have filed a lawsuit against a Realtor they say now has an interest in her home after he took advantage of the widow who was facing foreclosure last year.
But while the civil case is just getting started after being submitted in San Mateo County Superior Court last Friday, it represents the ongoing work of a county task force comprised of public and private groups seeking to deter elder abuse.
Gunhild B. Bogue, an 89-year-old whose estate is now under the conservatorship of the San Mateo County Public Guardian, is believed to be a victim of foreclosure fraud during which she agreed to sign a will promising to leave her Menlo Park property to a practical stranger, said Alexandra Banis, an attorney with Barulich Dugoni Law Group. The suit alleges Realtor Robert Leitao contacted Bogue after the property was listed as in foreclosure. He offered to pay her mortgage while allowing her to remain in the home until she died in exchange for her to deed him the property worth an estimated $1.4 million, Banis said.
As an elderly woman with health problems who was in a desperate situation with little understanding of what was happening when she met Leitao in February, 2015, Banis said it’s an unfortunate case of what surmounts to elder abuse, fraud and negligent misrepresentation.
Leitao disagrees, noting the county and attorneys have yet to hear his side of the story. He claims to have helped Bogue as she was just days away from losing the property that had nearly $800,000 worth of debt and a mortgage that hadn’t been paid for years. He also contends Bogue was a hoarder who, despite their agreement, didn’t allow him to fix up the property that’s in shambles.
Now, the county’s Elder and Dependent Adult Protection Team is seeking to support Bogue and deter abuse against this vulnerable population, said Banis and Deputy County Counsel Aimee Armsby.
The group made up of representatives from the county’s Health System, District Attorney’s Office, County Counsel and private law firms was solidified by the Board of Supervisors in November.
“It’s about providing protection and education for the seniors who reside in our county and we know that there are folks out there who are at risk of being taken advantage of,” said Armsby, who expressed concern about the increase of financial-fraud related cases. “I think that’s always going to be a worry in particular in San Mateo County because of the value of real property. Real estate is often the most substantial asset that a lot of older folks have.”
Banis said the firm she works for has been involved with the county team’s work and women over the age of 85, such as Bogue, are one of the most susceptible demographics in the United States.
“We interact a lot with the aging population here in San Mateo County and we saw the need to protect against elder abuse, which is running rampant and growing here,” Banis said. “Our client, in this case a widow in her late 80s, is a perfect example of someone that this task force in San Mateo seeks to protect.”
Bogue and her husband took out a $500,000 mortgage. Shortly after he died in 2013, her mortgage debt was $800,000. When her home went into foreclosure, Leitao sent an “inviting” letter offering a solution to what seemed to Bogue like an insurmountable problem. Thinking she’d found her savior, she contacted the man who rushed to the Menlo Park property within a few hours after she called, Banis said.
Leitao allegedly drafted several documents for Bogue to sign such as a will, deed of trust and loan agreement. Under the duress of facing foreclosure, she signed unaware of the predatory nature of the terms, Banis said. In exchange, Bogue was assured she would be able to continue to live in her home rent free for the rest of her life, according to the suit.
While Leitao eventually brought the mortgage current by paying a lump sum of about $300,000, he quit returning Bogue’s phone calls when it came time for him to help pay her ongoing monthly mortgage payment, according to the lawsuit.
What’s extremely disturbing, Banis added, is that Bogue has no recollection of agreeing to Leitao taking out a second deed of trust worth $995,000 on the property under the company Bare Ventures.
Between this deed, what’s currently still owed on the mortgage and the property valuation, Leitao stands to gain at least $156,000 even if the home were foreclosed upon, Banis said.
Leitao agreed he was encouraged to get involved because he saw value in the property, but contends Bogue is a hoarder who failed to keep up the house even after he offered assistance. Bogue’s goal was to remain in the home she’d lived in for decades but, due to her defaulting on her mortgage and the property being in poor condition, it’s unlikely anyone would have helped her, Leitao said. So he worked out a “reverse-mortgage, equity sort of deal,” which has been successful for both parties in the past. Leitao noted he often works with foreclosed properties and sends out solicitations to those who need to sell quickly and in this case, thought he was helping Bogue.
“I’m out $360,000 on that house. … There’s practically no equity in the house and it’s just such a huge fixer-upper and ultimately she just doesn’t want to move out. So I worked out a deal with her,” Leitao said, noting he believes the county has since red-tagged the property. “The only reason I did it was because I felt if the house was fixed up some day down the road, there’s potential in it. But as it is, it’s a shamble.”
Moving forward, Banis said they’re seeking a judge to void the contracts Bogue signed with Leitao. With the county’s housing market growing increasingly lucrative, Banis and Bogue said it’s important for family members or anyone who comes in to contact with an at-risk elderly person to notify appropriate agencies like the county’s adult protection team.
“Isolation is another factor that can contribute to elder abuse, when people don’t have family members around to look out for them,” Banis said. “I have heard of these types of cases (mortgage fraud) before and it may have to do with the increase in the property values in the county.”
Anyone who suspects elder abuse in San Mateo County is encouraged to call (800) 675-8437.
Full Article & Source:
Suit alleges woman, 89, victim of mortgage fraud: County officials, private attorneys combat elder abuse