Springfield attorney has law license suspended indefinitely after domestic assault case

by Harrison Keegan

The Supreme Court of Missouri announced Tuesday that a Springfield lawyer's law license will be suspended indefinitely after he pleaded guilty to two charges in a domestic violence case.

Aaron Klusmeyer, 37, must wait a year before he can apply for reinstatement, according to Tuesday's order. Klusmeyer, an attorney with Lowther Johnson Attorneys at Law, pleaded guilty in May to unlawful use of a weapon (a Class E felony) and fourth-degree domestic assault (a Class A misdemeanor) following an incident from February of 2019 where he pointed a loaded gun at himself and his then-wife.

Klusmeyer was sentenced to five years probation under a Suspended Imposition of Sentence (SIS) on the felony charge, meaning the conviction will go off his record if he successfully completes probation.

At sentencing, Klusmeyer's attorney argued that Klusmeyer's alcoholism was a major factor in the domestic violence incident and that Klusmeyer had since gotten sober. A condition of Klusmeyer's probation is to not consume or possess alcoholic beverages. He also must submit to drug/alcohol testing when requested by his probation offer.

In a legal filing opposing the professional suspension, Klusmeyer's attorney argued the terms of the probation were enough to ensure Klusmeyer stayed on the right path and that he should be allowed to continue practicing law and make money to go toward paying restitution to the victim in his case.

Tuesday's order from the Missouri Supreme Court states that if Klusmeyer applies for reinstatement of his license, the court will take into consideration whether he has any contact with the victim and whether he participates in appropriate treatment pertaining to domestic violence.

Full Article & Source:
Springfield attorney has law license suspended indefinitely after domestic assault case

Broussard attorney disciplined by state Supreme Court

Photo by: Louisiana Supreme Court

The state Supreme Court has disciplined a Broussard attorney.

The discipline handed down to attorney Carol Stookey Hunter was agreed upon by Hunter and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, a release from the Court states.

The investigation began after allegations were made that Hunter notarized a will that was executed by the person outside the presence of the witnesses. 

According to the disciplinary document issued by the Court, Hunter admitted that her conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Court issued a six-month suspension to her, but deferred the entire six months and placed Hunter on a year of unsupervised probation and ordered her to attend the Louisiana State Bar Association's Ethics School.

If she fails to comply with any of the conditions of her probation, or commits any misconduct during that year, the Court can activate the suspension or possibly discipline her further, the document states.

Hunter also is responsible for all costs and expenses of the investigation and process, the Court ordered.

Full Article & Source:

Broussard attorney disciplined by state Supreme Court 

Court: Pensacola attorney ran up $28,000 bill with frivolous, exaggerated filings

by Colin Warren-Hicks

The Florida Supreme Court has disciplined a prominent Pensacola personal injury attorney for submitting frivolous and exaggerated filings to run up his attorney's fee to more than $28,000 in a single case.

Jeremiah J. Talbott's legal license was suspended for 60 days and he was ordered to attend the Florida Bar's Professionalism Workshop and Ethics School, according to a news release from the Florida Bar. The Florida Supreme Court served Talbott with a disciplinary order April 15 mandating he begin his temporary suspension within 30 days.

The disciplinary actions resulted from Talbott "churning" legal fees, a term used in the legal profession for when an attorney performs unnecessary work to run up the bill for their services.

Talbott did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the News Journal on Monday.

Talbott was hired to litigate a federal court case in February 2017 under the Fair Labor Standards Act. His client, Christopher Moss, was a driver-operator at a local construction company, Pav'R Construction Inc., or PRC.

Moss quit his job after his employers wanted him to pay for equipment they claimed he broke while on the job. After he quit, his wages were withheld for one pay period to compensate the company for some of the broken equipment.

"This action by PRC technically meant that Mr. Moss was paid less than the minimum wage for one pay period, and PRC had violated a federal statute, the Fair Labor Standards Act," according to the Florida Bar's complaint against Talbott.

Moss hired Talbott to take PRC and the company's owner, Michael Breton, to court, arguing he was owned $496.62 in withheld wages.

After several months of back and forth legal filings, Breton and PRC agreed to pay Moss the $496.62.

Talbott subsequently filed a motion requesting that Breton and PRC pay him $28,351 in attorney's fees that he claimed to have incurred while recovering the $496.62 on behalf of his client, and the court took issue with his request. 

A complaint filed by the Florida Bar to the Florida Supreme Court stated that Talbott "exaggerated the amount of fees owned by claiming he did numerous secretarial tasks and paralegal tasks at his $350 per hour legal rate rather than delegating those tasks to his legal staff."

Talbott was charged with breaking Florida legal disciplinary rules that included conducting frivolous litigation, failing to expedite litigation, filing exaggerated billing sheets with the court and filing extensive and unnecessary discovery to increase attorney fees without a reason, according to the Florida Bar.

Florida Supreme Court documents showed Talbott did not contest the allegations, and he was subsequently disciplined. 

Full Article & Source:

Court: Pensacola attorney ran up $28,000 bill with frivolous, exaggerated filings

Local attorney disciplined

ASHLAND A high-powered local defense attorney — visible throughout the community with billboards that read “Just because you did it doesn’t mean you’re guilty” — has agreed to a one-year probationary period in lieu of a six-month suspension from practicing law.

At the center of the consensual discipline order are two cases: a personal injury case and the manslaughter case involving a former deputy jailer charged in the 2018 death of a Boyd County Detention Center inmate.

In an order penned Jan. 21 by the Kentucky Supreme Court, Attorney Sebastian M. Joy agreed to the consensual discipline order in November 2020 in connection with a state bar inquiry that found he overcharged Brad Roberts, one of the deputy jailers indicted in the death of 40-year-old Michael Moore.

According to the order, Joy agreed to represent Roberts for $35,000 with $10,000 up front. Joy then “visited” Roberts on Christmas Eve 2018 in the Fayette County Jail — however, jail records and Roberts himself do not corroborate the visit, leading the inquiry to conclude the meeting never happened.

For that visit, Joy charged $1,600 — which includes travel expenses, according to the order.

After Roberts was arraigned, Joy motioned to allow part of his cash bond to be secured with stocks and bonds, after Roberts’ uncle agreed to put them up, on the condition the bond was in his name, records show. However, when Joy made the motion, he never mentioned the uncle, according to the order.

The uncle had to turn around and get a lawyer of his own to fix it up in his name, so the stocks and bonds couldn’t be attached to any liens incurred by Roberts from a lawyer or a creditor, the order said.

The inquiry concluded Joy did not ask to use securities in the uncle’s name, because he knew if he did he wouldn’t be able to use them as a way to collect his money, according to the order.

After that, Roberts fired Joy — Joy sent a bill that deducted all of the $10,000 his client put up front, and left a balance of $1,386, records show.

The personal injury case involved an Ohio man who stated Joy did not keep him abreast of key developments in his case, including a partial summary judgment, according to the order. In that case, Joy was charged with failure to adequately represent that client.

As part of the terms of his probation, Joy agreed to refund Roberts $5,000 and attend ethics  and other legal trainings at his own expense, according to the order.

All the judges agreed to the order — newly seated Judge Bob Conley recused himself from the case.

Joy offered the following comment regarding the order:

“I’m glad to put this two-year ordeal behind us, it’s unfortunate the incident occurred. I have already met over half the conditions that were imposed upon me on my consensual discipline order. I will continue serving my clients ethically and aggressively to the best of my abilities,” Joy wrote in a text message.

Full Article & Source:

Local attorney disciplined

Disciplined Milton lawyer charged widow client more than $400,000

A Milton attorney reprimanded by the Florida Bar is accused of charging her widow client more than $400,000 over a decade in fees for activities like doctor's appointments and planning the woman's birthday party.

Jennifer Byrom, a practicing attorney since 1984, had been working with her client since 1998, when the client's husband died and left her with a $1.5 million estate. The Florida Bar's complaint against Byrom claimed the attorney was listed as a voluntary guardian of the woman's property after convincing the widow that her daughter would be a bad choice because she lived out of state.

Byrom did not respond to requests for comment on Tuesday.

The Florida Bar's complaint claims Byrom didn't provide the client with an explanation of fees she would charge for maintaining the woman's property and her legal work, and immediately began to perform activities outside the scope of the duties of the guardian of the property. Byrom began to charge $180 to $250 per hour for her time, and $60 to $80 per hour for her staff's time for work such as discussing her client's medical condition with doctors, reviewing her mail, visiting socially and taking her to doctor's appointments. She charged $85 per hour for a member of her staff to do yard work, clean the client's house and paint the porch, for example.

Byrom also charged the guardianship for activities such as attending visitation and the funeral of her client's son, visiting her on her birthday, throwing her birthday parties, sitting for hours in a hospital waiting room while her client was in surgery and taking food and gifts to her client's home. The complaint claimed that Byrom charged the guardianship as though legal services were being performed, as well as charging for expenses such as mileage and meals.

This inaccurate accounting prevented the court from having the ability to determine that no conflict of interest existed between Byrom and her client, according to the Florida Bar complaint.

When the client's son died in the summer of 2007, the client's daughter started receiving copies of Byrom's paperwork showing the legal charges. At that point, the complaint states, the fees increased from $1,550 for May of that year to $12,000 the next month, and they continued to climb thereafter.

The daughter tried for two years to change guardianship to herself after her mother was declared incapacitated, but Byrom fought back. During proceedings, the court learned that Byrom failed to inform the court that in 1998 she had prepared, and had in her possession, the original of a Declaration Naming Preneed Guardian, in which her client named her daughter preneed guardian in the event her mother was found incompetent.

In 2009, the client's daughter was named guardian of her mother's person and property. In 2013, the daughter accepted a confidential settlement against Byrom.

Byrom entered a conditional guilty plea to the Florida Bar's accusations in November, saying she would recognize the guilt and accept a public reprimand, and she would complete continuing education credits. The Florida Bar accepted those conditions in a Jan. 26 court order and released its public reprimand list March 31.

Full Article & Source:
Disciplined Milton lawyer charged widow client more than $400,000

Supreme Court Orders Public Reprimand of Lawyer Whose Wife Stole $2M From Firm Account

The Supreme Court of Georgia issued the following disciplinary decision on December 15:

In the Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided: December 15, 2016
S16Y0825. IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL ANTHONY EDDINGS.
PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Review Panel recommending that Michael Anthony Eddings ("Eddings") (State Bar No. 238751) be disbarred for several violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct arising out of the theft of $2.3 million from his law firm's trust account by his wife (now ex wife), Sonya Eddings ("Sonya"), while she was the law firm's financial manager. Eddings, in response, contends that a public reprimand or suspension is more appropriate under the circumstances, as Eddings did not participate in the theft and was unaware of Sonya's wrongful actions. After a review of the extensive record and detailed fact finding provided by the special master, Katherine L. McArthur, we reject the Review Panel's recommendation that Eddings be disbarred, and we agree with Eddings that a public reprimand is the more appropriate level of discipline to impose in this case.

The special master and Review Panel contend that Eddings violated Rules

1.15 (I) (c) and 1.15 (II) (b) and Rule 5.3 (a) and (b) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4 102 (d), based on the following facts: Eddings, who was admitted to the Georgia Bar in 2002 and initially worked for a plaintiffs' personal injury firm, opened his own practice in 2003, the Law Office of Michael Eddings, PC ("the Firm"), concentrating in real estate law. Sonya served as the Firm's financial manager. Sonya had a bachelor's degree in accounting, a master's degree in business administration, and substantial work experience in banking, including seven years with Columbus Bank & Trust/Synovus ("CB&T"), which was also the Firm's financial institution.

In 2006, Eddings and Sonya established Eddings Holdings for the purchasing and holding of a franchise of The Coffee Beanery with two stores. Sonya handled all of the operations related to the franchise, and told Eddings, falsely, that the franchise was breaking even. However, in March 2007, without telling Eddings, Sonya began diverting money from the Firm's IOLTA account to cover losses from the franchise. Between 2007 and October 2011, she stole over $2.3 million.

The record shows that Sonya used her inside knowledge of CB&T's technology and technological vulnerabilities to accomplish the theft. Because she had been a top professional at CB&T, the bank did not question her as closely as others might have been questioned when questions arose about the Firm's accounts. For example, just before Sonya's scheme came to light, she admitted to a CB&T employee that she had created a fake wire confirmation to present to a client, but claimed she did so because she had not sent the wire transfer when she should have. The CB&T employee accepted this explanation and did not inform Eddings.

Although Eddings and Sonya had monthly financial meetings to review the Firm's account reconciliations, Sonya presented bank statements that she had altered to remove any negative balance information. Additionally, over the course of Sonya's criminal activities, CB&T, without notice to Eddings, ceased providing notifications of overdrafts and placed the Firm's IOLTA account on automatic overdraft protection. As a result, CB&T provided notice to the State Bar on only a few of the multiple times the IOLTA account was overdrawn . On four occasions, Sonya also intercepted letters from the Bar's Trust Account Overdraft Notification Coordinator regarding checks presented against insufficient funds in the Firm's IOLTA account, and responded, to the Bar's satisfaction, without Eddings' knowledge or consent. When Eddings did receive information about minor irregularities during this time, Sonya was able to resolve or explain the issues to his satisfaction. And, when Eddings subsequently instituted new firm policies to address the issues, Sonya simply increased her level of deception to get around the new policies.

Finally, in October 2011, after a late payoff, the Firm's title insurance company conducted an audit which showed that between October 2007 and October 2011, the Firm's IOLTA account had a negative balance 50 times. Sonya then admitted her wrongdoing, and CB&T seized the Firm's funds and closed the Firm's accounts. The Firm's insurance company provided coverage for most of the losses; however, the parties agree that $65,618.22 in losses to clients and mortgage holders remains uncompensated.

The special master also found that there was no evidence that the money that was diverted went anywhere except the account of Eddings Holdings to run or cover losses for the coffee shops, finding that there was no evidence that the diverted funds went to pay personal bills or expenses for Eddings or Sonya, that there was no evidence presented that Eddings' lifestyle was one that could not have been maintained based on his own income, and that there was no evidence that Eddings was aware of the transfers from the Firm's account to the Eddings Holdings account. The special master found by clear and convincing evidence that Eddings did not know of the diversion of funds from the trust account by Sonya between 2007 and 2011, and therefore, that he had not knowingly violated the Rules. Nevertheless, the special master concluded that Eddings' failure to supervise Sonya and his failure to maintain his trust account constituted violations of Rules 1.15 (I) (c) and 1.15 (II) (b) and Rule 5.3 (a) and (b). For the reasons that follow, while we agree that Eddings violated Rules 1.15 (I) (c) and 1.15 (II) (b), we do not agree with the special master's conclusion that Eddings violated Rule 5.3 (a) and (b).

In this regard, the facts here point to the conclusion that Eddings was the victim of an elaborate con perpetrated by his wife, Sonya–a con that even bank officials unwittingly helped Sonya commit and in one case even helped her cover up–and not the conclusion that it was unreasonable for Eddings not to have done anything more to have prevented Sonya from misappropriating the funds that she stole. Eddings reviewed bank statements from CB&T, but had no reason to believe that Sonya had altered them; received information from an audit in February 2010 that did not find any suspected embezzlement activity; was unaware of correspondence that Sonya had deliberately intercepted to ensure that her deceit would not be discovered; and, even when Eddings implemented new office procedures in November 2010 in an effort to prevent future account irregularities and make sure that all wire transfers would be made properly, Sonya was able to use her banking skills and relationships to circumvent these policies (and even convince bank officials to hide from Eddings the fact that she had created a fake wire transfer in connection with one of the law firm's real estate closings). Sonya was so convincing in her con that no one from CB&T believed that any deceit was occurring, let alone to the tune of $2.3 million, and Eddings was given no information upon which to base a reasonable belief that any deceit was occurring. Indeed, no one discovered Sonya's deception until October 27, 2011, when Sonya herself confessed in writing during the audit by First American Title Insurance Company that she had been misappropriating funds from the law firm's trust account since 2007. In short, none of the activity here shows the type of misconduct on the attorney's part that this Court would generally look for to justify a suspension from the practice of law. See, e.g., In the Matter of Jones, 280 Ga. 302 (627 SE2d 24) (2006).

Additionally, as the special master noted, this is not a case where Eddings should have noticed a change in his lifestyle or that of his wife. To the contrary, Sonya diverted money from the IOLTA account to cover losses from the two coffee shops that she operated independently from Eddings and that she was eventually forced to close. Eddings had no knowledge that the coffee shops were failing.

Based on the above, the special master has not provided any solid reasoning to support the conclusion that Eddings violated Rule 5.3 (a) and (b) relating to his duty to make reasonable efforts to supervise Sonya under the facts of this case. Eddings therefore cannot be disciplined for any alleged violation of this Rule. Specifically, Rule 5.3 (a) and (b) provides that:

With respect to a nonlawyer employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer . . . a lawyer who ... possesses managerial authority in a law firm[] shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; [and] a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer.  (Click to Continue)

Full Article & Source:
Supreme Court Orders Public Reprimand of Lawyer Whose Wife Stole $2M From Firm Account

High court suspends lawyer Nick Ward for improprieties

Richard G. "Nick" Ward

Attorney Richard "Nick" Ward insisted he did nothing unethical when he used confidential information he learned from a client to later sue him on behalf of another client.

Ward insisted it was proper for him to sue John "Bud" Koons III in a legal fight over Koons' $300 million estate. He insisted it was proper even though Ward and his father, a former president of the Cincinnati Bar Association, previously represented Koons on several issues – including Koons' financial planning and legal work for Koons' large estate.

Meanwhile, a Koons relative hired Nick Ward to sue Bud Koons.

But the Ohio Supreme Court last week decided Ward was wrong, finding it was improper for him to represent opposing sides. Ohio's high court suspended Ward from practicing law for a year.

Ward, who complained to The Enquirer in 2008-2009 about stories it was writing about his involvement in the suits, didn't return calls for this story.

Ward's suspension is the latest chapter in a years-long fight over Koons' $300 million estate. That fight caused the Cincinnati law firm Richard "Nick" Ward's father founded in 1958 to split. The original firm, Drew & Ward, split into the Drew Law Firm and the Ward Law Firm. The Drew firm later closed. The Ward firm appears to be only Richard "Nick" Ward.

"At a minimum the Supreme Court opinion validates your article," attorney Jim Helmer told The Enquirer about Ward's suspension. Helmer represented Koons' interests in the suits.

Helmer was blunt about what he believed was a conflict for Nick Ward in them.

"In my 33 years of doing this, I have never seen anything as unethical and illegal by any lawyer in Cincinnati," Helmer said in a 2008 Enquirer story about Ward and the suits.

Last week, Helmer added, "Even a cursory reading of (last week's) decision confirms what I said."

Ward's father, Richard "Dick" Ward was friends with Koons since at least the time both attended Walnut Hills High together. Koons and his family built a bustling business selling and delivering Burger Beer. Proceeds from that business were placed into two trusts – one for Koons and his descendants, the other for Koons' sister, Betty Lou Cundall, and her descendants. She is the mother of Michael "K.C." Cundall, the nephew who hired Nick Ward to sue Koons.

The Koons family used their part of the trust funds to invest and diversify, buying several Pepsi bottling and distribution companies in Florida and Ohio, and becoming, at one point, the seventh largest such distributor in the U.S. The Cundalls, it was alleged in the suits, spent much of their portion of the trust instead of reinvesting it.

Koons later sold the Pepsi distributorships for $340 million, a transaction Koons relied heavily on Dick Ward and his law firm to make. Nick Ward, a partner in his father's law firm, reviewed documents with his dad regarding Koons' estate.

That wasn't an issue until K.C. Cundall became upset when his family's portion of the trust was revealed to be millions while the Koons portion of the trust was more than $300 million.

Cundall hired Nick Ward to represent him in a suit against Koons and his company, accusing Koons of improperly handing the trusts to the Cundalls' economic detriment. Some of the information Cundall used to sue Koons came from the period when Nick Ward represented Koons. Using that information to later sue Koons was improper, the high court found.

Attorneys representing Koons' estate sued the Drew & Ward law firm (before it was split into two firms) for $10 million.

The suit was settled by the firm's insurance company for $5 million. That is known despite attempts to hide it. The Enquirer fought attempts to make private a settlement made in a public courtroom while on the record – and won.

All three of the Ohio lawsuits regarding that Koons have been resolved, either in Koons' favor or by settlement.

Attorney discipline

Cincinnati attorney Richard "Nick" Ward was suspended last week by the Ohio Supreme Court. He can't practice law for a year.

•Ohio attorney discipline like Ward's doesn't become public unless there is a finding of wrongdoing by the high court and disciplinary action is taken;

•A complaint is made about an attorney and referred to an arm of the Ohio Supreme Court, which investigates. If there is a finding of wrongdoing, it is referred to the Supreme Court justices, who then make their own ruling;

•In 2013, the last year for which statistics are available, the Ohio Supreme Court suspended 51 attorneys for wrongdoing.

Full Article & Source:
High court suspends lawyer Nick Ward for improprieties

Eleven Texas lawyers & four judges disciplined

Disciplinary Actions — December 2014 State Bar list (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:

JUDICIAL ACTION
On Sept. 4, 2014, the Hon. Denise Pratt [#16238500], former judge of the 311th District Court, Houston, Harris County, was issued a public reprimand by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct for failing to be diligent and failing to timely execute the business of the court in violation of Article V, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution. The commission found that Judge Pratt’s decisional delays, which inclu-ded a failure to timely issue orders, renditions, and findings of fact in numerous family law cases pending before her court, were unreasonable and unjustified; that Judge Pratt’s frequent tardiness and cancelation of hearings and trials contributed to the court’s enormous backlog; and that her dismissal for want of prosecution of more than 600 cases on Dec. 30-31, 2013, without notice to the parties or their attorneys, failed to comply with the law under Canon 2A, demonstrated a lack of professional competence in the law under Canon 3B(2), and deprived litigants of their right to be heard under Canon 3B(8). The commission noted that prompt disposition of cases is critical to the parties appearing in court, especially when vulnerable children are involved, and necessary to prevent backlogs that interfere with the administration of justice. The commission also noted that a judge who fails to show up for court hearings, appears late to court, or delays making decisions and signing orders in cases involving the rights of parents and the best interests of children, causes harm and a great disservice to parties, lawyers, witnesses, jurors, and other judges.

DISBARMENT
On Sept. 15, 2014, Melonie Dwan Jones [#24032483], 49, of Sugar Land, was disbarred in three separate disciplinary actions composed of multiple cases. An evidentiary panel of the District 5 Grievance Committee found that in all three disciplinary matters, Jones failed to keep her clients reasonably informed about the status of their legal matters; failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information from the clients about their legal matters; failed to explain the status of the legal matters to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the clients to make informed decisions regarding the representation; engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; failed to timely furnish to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel a response or other information as required by the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure; and engaged in the practice of law when her right to practice had been administratively suspended for failure to timely pay required fees and assessments or for failure to comply with Article XII of the State Bar rules relating to mandatory continuing legal education. The panel found that, upon receiving funds in which some of the clients had an interest, Jones failed to promptly notify the clients; failed to promptly deliver to the clients funds that they were entitled to receive; failed to hold funds, belonging at least in part to the clients, that were in Jones’s possession in connection with the representation separate from her own property; and distributed funds, belonging at least in part to the clients, that were in Jones’s possession in connection with the representation to persons or entities who were not entitled to receive them by virtue of the representation or by law. The panel found that Jones failed to abide by some clients’ decisions of whether to accept an offer to settle the clients’ legal matters and that she knowingly disobeyed a ruling by a tribunal and committed a serious crime or other criminal act that reflects adversely on her honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. Jones violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.02(a)(2), 1.03(a), 1.03(b), 1.14(a), 1.14(b), 1.14(c), 3.04(d), 8.04(a)(2), 8.04(a)(3), 8.04(a)(8), and 8.04(a)(11). She was ordered to pay $60,955 in restitution and $3,944.99 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

SUSPENSIONS
On Oct. 9, 2014, Ty Alexander Gibson [#24083069], 28, of Houston, agreed to a 28-month, 15-day partially probated suspension effective Nov. 1, 2014, with the first four months and 15 days actively suspended and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee found that Gibson ordered, encouraged, or permitted conduct by a non-lawyer that would have been a violation of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged in by Gibson; paid a non-lawyer to solicit and refer prospective clients; accepted or continued employment in a matter when that employment was procured in a manner contrary to the disciplinary rules; committed a criminal act that reflects adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer; and engaged in conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and that constitutes barratry as defined by the law of this state. Gibson violated Rules 5.03(b)(1), 7.03(b), 7.06(a), 8.04(a)(2), 8.04(a)(3), and 8.04(a)(9). He agreed to pay $2,000 in attorneys’ fees and $620.80 in direct expenses.

On Sept. 15, 2014, Charles L. Thorn [#19963700], 61, of Webster, received a two-year probated suspension effective Oct. 1, 2014. An evidentiary panel of the District 7 Grievance Committee found that complainant hired Thorn for representation regarding two traffic citations. In representing complainant, Thorn neglected the legal matters entrusted to him by failing to provide legal services for complainant and failing to keep complainant reasonably informed about the status of the legal matters. Thorn violated Rules 1.01(b)(1) and 1.03(a). He was ordered to pay $100 in restitution and $1,300 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

Full Article & Source:
Eleven Texas lawyers & four judges disciplined