Lawyers disciplined by CT judges for misconduct ranging from unauthorized practice to not doing job adequately

 by Alex Wood

A New York lawyer who charged a disabled woman $10,000 to provide non-professional support in a Connecticut court case — but instead gave her legal advice and prepared court documents for her, despite not being licensed to practice law in Connecticut — has been ordered to return the money.

In an agreed-upon June 12 judgment in state Superior Court in Hartford, lawyer Lowell Sidney, who has offices in New York City and Rockville Centre, N.Y., also was ordered not to practice law in Connecticut or apply for admission to the Connecticut bar for a year from the June 12 order.

In the “presentment” bringing the case to court, Marie-Louise Villar, Connecticut’s assistant chief disciplinary counsel for lawyers, said unauthorized practice of law is a “criminal act” in Connecticut. But online state judicial records list no pending criminal case or conviction for Sidney.

His retainer agreement with the woman called for him to act as an “advocate” for her under the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the allegations in the presentment, all of which Sidney admitted, according to Judge Susan Quinn Cobb’s order imposing the sanctions on him.

Under Connecticut judicial branch guidelines, a support person can sit next to a disabled litigant in court to provide emotional or moral support, take notes, organize documents and provide any other help to the litigant as directed by the judge.

A support person is not permitted to give legal advice or perform other functions of a lawyer, such as addressing the judge or questioning witnesses. A lawyer can serve as a support person but only with the judge’s approval. Sidney did not get that approval or even disclose that he was a lawyer and failed to provide the services of a support person, including being in the courtroom, he admitted.

Lawyers in Connecticut are allowed to draft court documents for self-represented litigants, but court rules require that the papers contain a notation indicating that they were prepared that way. The papers Sidney drafted for the woman lacked that notation, he admitted.

Reached by telephone, Sidney declined to comment on the case.

Sidney’s case was one of several in recent months in which judges took disciplinary action against lawyers. Although the Statewide Grievance Committee has authority to reprimand lawyers and take remedial measures, such as requiring a lawyer to take continuing legal education courses, only a judge can suspend or disbar a lawyer. A judge can, however, opt for a reprimand or dismiss the case.

The following lawyers were suspended:

• Joseph C. Barberie, who has practiced in Putnam and New London, was suspended from practicing law for a year on July 17 by Judge Ernest Green in state Superior Court in Putnam for failing to cooperate with Statewide Grievance Committee audits of his clients’ funds accounts.
Barbarie had been suspended on an interim basis since December 2019, the judge wrote.

Barbarie, who is representing himself, could not be reached for comment.

• Alisha Mathers, who has practiced law from her apartments in the Bristol-New Britain area, received two concurrent suspensions from Cobb, on March 31 and another on July 10.

The longest suspension, for nine months, stemmed from a case in which Mathers received $7,000 to represent an incarcerated criminal defendant despite having had her prison visiting privileges revoked, making it difficult for her to communicate with him. Cobb ordered Mathers to repay the $7,000.

The judge imposed a concurrent three-month suspension on Mathers for misconduct that included failing to appear for a hearing in a family case when she was trying to withdraw but remained her client’s “counsel of record.”

In the face of evidence about chaos in Mathers’ law practice and lack of professional boundaries in her relationships with clients, Cobb also ordered her to take courses in management of clients’ funds accounts, office management and client relationships.

Cobb later imposed another concurrent 30-day suspension on Mathers in a case in which she was accused of paying an unannounced visit to a woman who had filed a child-custody action against a man Mathers represented in the case.

The woman said she asked Mathers whether she was an attorney and that Mathers failed to disclose that she was, saying she was just working with the man involved in the custody dispute, according to the presentment filed by Assistant Chief Disciplinary Counsel Karen Oliver Damboise.

Mathers agreed to the concurrent suspension in that case, acknowledging that there was enough evidence to prove the rule violations at issue while still denying some or all of the key allegations.

Mathers’ lawyer, David V. DeRosa, could not be reached for comment.

• Leonard A. McDermott, whose firm is Employee Advocates LLC of Naugatuck, was suspended for 90 days and ordered to repay a total of $6,000 to two former clients on June 30 by Judge W. Glen Pierson in state Superior Court in Waterbury. The judge wrote that the “default judgment” was issued because McDermott had failed to appear for the second day of trial in the case, June 30.

McDermott filed a motion to reargue the suspension, saying he had not received notice of the June 30 hearing. But Brian B. Staines, Connecticut’s chief disciplinary counsel for lawyers, objected, saying notice of the hearing was sent and that McDermott failed to respond to other attempts to contact him, including an email providing him with a proposed version of the discipline order later signed by the judge.

Pierson denied the motion to reargue, online court records show.

Staines is asking the judge to hold McDermott in contempt of court for failing to comply with the conditions of the June 30 order. A “remote hearing” in the case is scheduled for Sept. 25, records show.

The case was based on allegations that McDermott had failed to properly pursue employment discrimination complaints on behalf of three clients and had stopped communicating with them, according to the presentment Staines filed at the beginning of the case.

McDermott, who is representing himself, could not be reached for comment.

• Daniel G. Ruggiero, who has lived and worked mostly in Florida but has a “by appointment only” office in Massachusetts, agreed to a suspension of a year and a day, retroactive to April 14, mirroring action taken against him in Massachusetts, according to a July 10 order by Cobb.

In adopting the year-and-a-day suspension recommended by the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers, Associate Judge Dalila Argaez Wendlandt of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court described multiple areas of misconduct in Ruggiero’s representation of 15 homeowners seeking mortgage relief.

One was that his fee arrangement permitted him to collect fees every month, even if no work was done, according to Wendlandt’s March 15 decision. Another was that Ruggiero failed to communicate with clients and delegated work to unsupervised non-lawyers, ratifying their conduct later, the decision says.

Other violations were sharing fees with non-lawyers and using a firm name indicating that Ruggiero “was part of a legal organization as opposed to a solo practitioner,” the decision says.

Ruggiero could not be reached for comment.

• David W. Parker of the Parker Law Firm in Springfield, Mass., also received discipline mirroring action in Massachusetts, a six-month suspension, stayed for two years and subject to further orders of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Patty Jenkins Pittman, a semi-retired judge trial referee, imposed the Connecticut discipline June 20 in state Superior Court in Hartford.

As recounted in a 17-page March 24 decision by Associate Justice Elspeth B. Cypher of the Massachusetts court, Parker had been appointed to represent a child in a “care and protection” case in Holyoke Juvenile Court. A judge had granted temporary custody to the child’s father on conditions that included “ensuring a sober caretaker for the child,” the decision says.

Despite having received documents indicating that the father had a history of alcohol abuse, Parker bought several one-ounce bottles of whiskey for the father on a day when the father was later escorted from a hockey arena while intoxicated, according to the decision.

The rink incident led to the child being removed from the father’s custody, the decision continues.

In explaining her decision to adopt the two-year stay of Parker’s suspension, Cypher explained that it “would provide a great incentive” for Parker “to maintain his sobriety and continue to better himself and his practice.” When the two-year period is up — if the Massachusetts bar counsel’s office agrees — Parker can petition the court for termination of the suspension, Cypher ordered.

Reached for comment, Parker’s lawyer, Laura Greenberg-Chao, said, “Attorney Parker is happy to put the long disciplinary process behind him, and he is proud of his four years of recovery and successful practice of law.”

Full Article & Source:
Lawyers disciplined by CT judges for misconduct ranging from unauthorized practice to not doing job adequately

18 Lawyers & Judges disciplined in Texas on June list

By Mary Flood

Disciplinary Actions — June 2021 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

JUDICIAL ACTIONS
On April 9, 2021, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public warning and order of additional education to Fredericka Phillips, judge of the 61st District Court, Houston, Harris County.

SUSPENSION
On April 5, 2021, John Joseph Klevenhagen III [#90001652], of Houston, accepted a 12-month fully probated suspension effective April 5, 2021. An investigatory panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee found that Klevenhagen failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of her matter, failed to promptly deliver to the client funds that the client was entitled to receive, and 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. Klevenhagen violated Rules 1.03(a), 1.14(b), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $500 in attorneys’ fees and expenses.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On April 5, 2021, John Joseph Klevenhagen III [#90001652], of Houston, accepted a public reprimand effective April 5, 2021. An investigatory panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee found that Klevenhagen failed to promptly deliver to a third person funds that the third person was entitled to receive and 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. Klevenhagen violated Rules 1.14(b) and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $250 in attorneys’ fees and expenses.

Rest of the state

JUDICIAL ACTIONS
To read the entire public sanctions, go to scjc.texas.gov.
On April 9, 2021, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public reprimand and order of additional education to James Baldwin, justice of the peace, Precinct 1, Deanville, Burleson County.

On April 9, 2021, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public reprimand and order of additional education to Andy Isaacs, justice of the peace, Precinct 3, Rockdale, Milam County.

On May 4, 2021, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued an opinion on the Special Court of Review In Re Inquiry Concerning The Honorable Lee Harper Wilson CJC Nos. 19-0755 & 19-0759.

REINSTATEMENT
Alonzo Ramos [#00797279], of Laredo, filed a petition in the 341st District Court of Webb County for reinstatement as a member of the State Bar of Texas.

DISBARMENTS
On March 22, 2021, John Rex Thompson [#19956150], of Tyler, was disbarred effective March 18, 2021. The District 2 Grievance Committee found that in September 2018, Thompson was hired for representation in a criminal matter. Thompson was paid $1,800 on September 20, 2018, and $700 on December 21, 2018. Thompson was actively suspended from practicing law on September 1, 2018, and has remained actively suspended since September 1, 2018, for failure to comply with a disciplinary judgment. On April 4, 2020, Thompson submitted a response to the grievance on letterhead that states, “Thompson Law Firm Rex Thompson, Attorney” even though Thompson was actively suspended and prohibited from using his name, in any manner, in conjunction with the words “attorney at law,” “attorney,” “counselor at law,” or “lawyer.”
In April 2016, Thompson was hired for representation in two felony criminal matters pending in Smith County for a flat fee of $7,500. In or about September 2016, Thompson stopped communicating with the client. Thompson failed to keep the client reasonably informed and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. On April 4, 2020, Thompson submitted a response to the grievance on letterhead that states, “Thompson Law Firm Rex Thompson, Attorney” even though Thompson was actively suspended and prohibited from using his name, in any manner, in conjunction with the words “attorney at law,” “attorney,” “counselor at law,” or “lawyer.” In July 2014, Thompson was hired to sue a client’s landlord. Thompson neglected to file suit until December 5, 2014, after the client sent certified mail to remind Thompson that the statute of limitations was going to expire. Thereafter, the case was dismissed for want of prosecution on March 3, 2015, because Thompson failed to notify the client of the trial date and failed to appear on the trial date. Further, on March 16, 2015, Thompson misrepresented to the client that Thompson would reinstate the lawsuit even though Thompson was on active suspension from January 1, 2015, until June 20, 2015. Despite being notified of the grievance, Thompson failed to submit a response to the grievance. In June 2017, Thompson was hired for representation in a criminal matter and was paid $2,000. While representing the client, Thompson’s law license was actively suspended and Thompson failed to notify the client that he could no longer practice law. On April 18, 2019, Thompson issued a refund check to the client that was returned due to insufficient funds. Despite being notified of the grievance, Thompson failed to submit a response to the grievance. Thompson neglected the legal matters entrusted to him and failed to keep his clients reasonably informed about the status of their legal matters. Thompson failed to hold client funds that were in Thompson’s possession in connection with the representation separate from Thompson’s own property, and upon termination of representation, Thompson failed to refund advance payments of fees that had not been earned. Thompson violated a disciplinary judgment and failed to respond to the grievances filed against him. Thompson violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.14(a), 1.15(d), 8.04(a)(7), 8.04(a)(8), and 8.04(a)(11). He was ordered to pay $2,000 in restitution and $5,954.64 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On March 10, 2021, John Rex Thompson [#19956150], of Tyler, was disbarred, effective March 2, 2021. The District 2 Grievance Committee found that on or about June 19, 2018, the complainant hired and paid Thompson $1,738.26 to represent the complainant in connection with a criminal matter. Thompson made an appearance in the case on June 25, 2018, and withdrew on July 6, 2018, without providing any legal services or filing any substantive motions in the case. Upon termination of representation, Thompson failed to refund advance payments of the fee that had not been earned. Thompson failed to respond to the grievance. Thompson violated Rules 1.15(d) and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $1,738.26 in restitution and $3,837.50 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

RESIGNATIONS
On April 13, 2021, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation, in lieu of discipline, of Richard E. Jackson [#10492980], of Coppell. At the time of Jackson’s resignation, there was one pending matter against him alleging professional misconduct. Beginning in 1999, Jackson was the lead assistant district attorney assigned to prosecute Stanley Mozee and Dennis Allen for the murder of Rev. Jesse Borns Jr. Jackson failed to disclose evidence that tended to negate the guilt of Mozee and Allen to defense counsel, including but not limited to, timely disclosure of details related to eyewitnesses’ identification or description of Mozee and Allen or another alleged suspect. Jackson allegedly violated Rule 3.09(d). On April 13, 2021, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation, in lieu of discipline, of Weldon Ralph Petty Jr. [#15866500], of Midland. At the time of his resignation, Petty had three grievances pending alleging Petty represented opposing parties in the same related matter. Petty violated Rule 1.06(b)(2).

SUSPENSIONS
On April 3, 2021, Joe Beverly Abbey [#00789000], of Rowlett, received a 48-month partially probated suspension effective April 1, 2021, with the first 12 months actively served and the remainder probated. An investigatory panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that in January 2017, Abbey was hired to review documents relative to an international loan transaction and was wired $30,696.97 to be held in escrow pending the closing of the loan. Thereafter, Abbey paid himself and other parties out of the escrow funds. When the loan transaction could not be completed and a dispute arose about the escrow funds, Abbey misrepresented that he was returning the funds when, in fact, Abbey paid the remaining funds to himself. Abbey failed to hold funds that were in Abbey’s possession in connection with the representation separate from his own property and failed to keep the disputed funds separated until the dispute was resolved. Abbey knowingly failed to disclose a material fact and the disclosure was necessary to avoid making Abbey a party to a fraudulent act. Abbey engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Abbey violated Rules 1.14(a), 1.14(c), 4.01(b), and 8.04(a)(3). He was ordered to pay $30,696.97 in restitution and $750 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On March 31, 2021, Scottie Allen [#01058020], of Dallas, agreed to a three-year fully probated suspension effective April 1, 2021. An investigatory panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that Allen represented the complainant in proceedings following a mistrial declared in a criminal matter. Upon termination of representation, Allen failed to surrender papers and property to which the complainant was entitled. Allen violated Rule 1.15(d). He agreed to pay $816 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On March 31, 2021, Ysidro Deluna Arismendez III [#24008750], of Beeville, agreed to a one-year fully probated suspension effective April 1, 2021. An evidentiary panel of the District 11 Grievance Committee found that Arismendez neglected a client’s matter, failed to keep a client reasonably informed, and failed to return unearned fees. Arismendez violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), and 1.15(d).

On April 16, 2021, Keith Best Dunbar [#24010802], of Texarkana, received a 24-month fully probated suspension beginning April 1, 2021, and ending on March 31, 2023. An investigatory panel of the District 1 Grievance Committee found that Dunbar was paid $5,000 to represent a client in a child custody matter; thereafter, Dunbar failed to safeguard the client’s funds, failed to render an accounting of the funds, and failed to promptly refund the advance payment of fees that were not earned. Dunbar also represented another client in a divorce action and the client used a tax return refund to pay the retainer provided that Dunbar would return the remainder of the client’s tax refund after he deducted his fees and expenses. Dunbar failed to render an accounting of the clients’ funds and failed to promptly refund the advance payment of fees that were not earned. Dunbar violated Rules 1.14(a), 1.14(b), and 1.15(d). He was ordered to pay $2,625 in restitution to the first client and $750 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On March 29, 2021, W. David Holliday [#09877300], of Dallas, received a fully probated suspension effective March 1, 2021, and ending on May 31, 2021. An investigatory hearing panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that Holliday failed to hold client funds  separate from his own property. Holliday had direct supervisory authority over his assistant and failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure that his assistant’s conduct was compatible with the professional obligations of Holliday. Holliday violated Rules 1.14(a) and 5.03(a). He was ordered to pay $250 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On April 2, 2021, Jamie Terence Katzen [#24065541], of Dallas, agreed to a 36-month fully probated suspension effective April 1, 2021. An investigatory panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that while representing a client, Katzen deliberately overbilled his client and misrepresented the reason for the overbilling. Katzen collected an unconscionable fee and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Katzen violated Rules 1.04(a) and 8.04(a)(3). He was ordered to pay $500 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On March 11, 2021, Pamela Regina Parker [#11601950], of Easthampton, Massachusetts, accepted a three-year partially probated suspension [one year active and two years probated] effective May 1, 2021. An evidentiary panel of the District 9 Grievance Committee found that while representing a client in an employment matter, Parker failed to file her client’s discrimination claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC. Parker also failed to respond to her client’s requests for information and explain the matter to the extent necessary for her client to make informed decisions. Additionally, Parker falsely represented to the client that she had filed an EEOC claim on the client’s behalf. After the client discovered that Parker did not file her claim with the EEOC, Parker failed to timely refund the unearned portion of her fee and return the client’s documents in her possession. Parker violated Rule 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.03(b), 1.14(b), 1.15(d), 8.01(a), and 8.04(a)(3). She was ordered to pay $3,631.60 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On February 24, 2021, Mansel C. Turton [#20345600], of San Antonio, received a 4-year partially probated suspension effective March 25, 2021, with the first six months actively served and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 10 Grievance Committee found that Turton failed to hold the client’s funds in a trust account separate from his own property and failed to promptly render a full account regarding the client’s funds. Turton violated Rules 1.14(a) and 1.14(b). He agreed to pay $750 in restitution and $1,655 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

PUBLIC REPRIMANDS
On April 2, 2021, Robert Ray Flores [#24071887], of Raymondville, accepted a public reprimand. An investigatory panel of the District 12 Grievance Committee found that Flores failed to timely file a response to a grievance. Flores violated Rule 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $800 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On March 24, 2021, Justin Avery Moore [#24088906], of Dallas, agreed to a public reprimand. The District 6 Grievance Committee found that on or about February 16, 2018, the complainant hired Moore to file a defamation lawsuit. Moore was paid $5,000 in advance legal fees. Upon termination of representation, Moore failed to refund advance payments of the fee that had not been earned. Moore violated Rule 1.15(d). He was ordered to pay $2,500 in restitution and $800 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On April 1, 2021, Gaylene Rogers [#17166500], of Dallas, agreed to a public reprimand. An investigatory panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that in June 2019, Rogers was retained by the complainant to draw up a partnership agreement for a residential property. In representing the complainant, Rogers neglected the legal matter entrusted to her by failing to complete any legal work. Rogers failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed about the status of her legal matter and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information from the complainant. In August 2017, Rogers, acting as an escrow officer, closed on a loan between the complainant’s private lending company and another company. Rogers maintained funds in her trust account that were to be used for title insurance, but Rogers failed to obtain the insurance. Rogers violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), and 1.14(b). She was ordered to pay $3,000 in restitution and $500 in attorneys’ fees.

Full Article & Source:

18 Lawyers & Judges disciplined in Texas on June list

Nine Judges and Lawyers Disciplined on April List

By Mary Flood

Disciplinary Actions — April 2021 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

SUSPENSION
On February 10, 2021, Henri M. Cosey [#00783883], 66, of Sugar Land, received a two-year partially probated suspension effective March 1, 2021, with the first six months actively suspended and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 5 Grievance Committee found that in representing the complainant in a business financial transaction, Cosey neglected the legal matter entrusted to him. Cosey failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. Upon receiving funds or other property, Cosey failed to promptly notify the client and failed to promptly render a full accounting regarding such property. Cosey violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), and 1.14(b). He was ordered to pay $2,000 in restitution and $1,500 in attorneys’ fees.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On January 29, 2021, Syria Sinoski [#24079344], 43, of Houston, accepted a public reprimand. An investigatory panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee found that in representing a client, Sinoski neglected a legal matter entrusted to her and frequently failed to carry out completely the obligations that she owed to the client. Sinoski violated Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct Rules 1.01(b)(1) and 1.01(b)(2). She was ordered to pay $1,000 in attorneys’ fees.

Rest of the state

JUDICIAL ACTIONS
To read the entire public sanctions, go to scjc.texas.gov.
On January 21, 2021, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public reprimand and order of additional education to Thomas G. Jones, justice of the peace, Precinct 1, Place 1, Dallas, Dallas County. Jones has filed an appeal of his sanction to a special court of review.

On February 23, 2021, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued an order of suspension without pay to Tomas “Tommy” Ramirez III, justice of the peace, Precinct 4, Devine, Medina County.

SUSPENSIONS
On January 22, 2021, Sarah Hoffman [#24075146], 37, of Dallas, received a two-year partially probated suspension effective February 15, 2021, with the first year actively suspended and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 14 Grievance Committee found that on November 21, 2017, Hoffman was hired to prepare a will. Hoffman was paid $1,200 for the legal representation. During the representation, Hoffman neglected the legal matter and failed to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the case. Upon termination of representation, Hoffman failed to refund unearned fees. Hoffman also failed to timely submit a response to the grievance. Hoffman violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8). Hoffman was ordered to pay $1,200 in restitution and $1,300 in attorneys’ fees and costs.
On January 22, 2021, Sarah Hoffman [#24075146], 37, of Dallas, received a two-year partially probated suspension effective February 15, 2021, with the first six months actively suspended and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 14 Grievance Committee found that on September 6, 2018, Hoffman was hired to represent a client in a probate matter. Hoffman was paid $1,700 for the legal representation. During the representation, Hoffman neglected the legal matter, failed to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the case, and failed to explain the probate matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions about the representation. Upon termination of representation, Hoffman failed to refund unearned fees. Hoffman also failed to timely submit a response to the grievance. Hoffman violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.03(b), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8). She was ordered to pay $1,000 in restitution and $1,500 in attorneys’ fees and costs.
On January 22, 2021, Sarah Hoffman [#24075146], 37, of Dallas, received a two-year partially probated suspension effective February 15, 2021, with the first 18 months actively suspended and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 14 Grievance Committee found that in representing two clients in separate probate matters, beginning January 30, 2017, and October 31, 2018, respectively, Hoffman neglected the clients’ legal matters, failed to keep the clients reasonably informed about the status of their cases, and failed to provide a client with a refund of unearned fees. Hoffman also failed to timely submit a response to the grievance. Hoffman violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8). She was ordered to pay $2,000 in restitution and $2,100 in attorneys’ fees and costs.

On January 15, 2021, Joe Luis Luna [#12688900], 62, of Crystal City, accepted a six-month fully probated suspension effective January 15, 2021. An investigatory panel of the District 12 Grievance Committee found that Luna neglected a client’s matters, failed to keep clients reasonably informed, failed to have a written statement in a contingent fee arrangement, represented clients when the representation reasonably appeared to be or became adversely limited by his duties to third persons or by his own interests, failed to make statements or disclaimers required under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct in the same language as the original solicitation communication, and engaged in conduct involving a serious crime. Luna violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.03(b), 1.04(d), 1.06(b)(2), 7.02(d), and 8.04(a)(2). He agreed to pay $1,750 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On January 15, 2021, Joe Luis Luna [#12688900], 62, of Crystal City, accepted a three-month fully probated suspension effective January 15, 2021. An investigatory panel of the District 12 Grievance Committee found that Luna represented clients when the representation reasonably appeared to be or became adversely limited by his duties to third persons or by his own interests and engaged in conduct involving a serious crime. Luna violated Rules 1.06(b)(2) and 8.04(a)(2). He agreed to pay $1,250 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On January 29, 2021, David Saenz [#17514700], 70, of McAllen, agreed to a 24-month fully probated suspension effective February 1, 2021. An investigatory panel of the District 12 Grievance Committee found that Saenz failed to communicate with a client and permitted the conduct of a non-lawyer to violate disciplinary rules. Saenz violated Rules 1.03(a) and 5.03(b)(1). He was ordered to pay $1,500 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On January 28, 2021, Daniel Robert Thering [#24042023], 44, of Austin, agreed to a 40-month partially probated suspension effective January 15, 2023, with the first 20 months actively served and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 9 Grievance Committee found that in March 2018, Thering substituted into a lawsuit involving a real estate dispute as attorney of record for the complainant. On January 14, 2019, the trial court awarded the complainant damages and attorneys’ fees to be paid from the earnest money being held by the title company relative to the underlying real estate transaction. In February 2019, the title company wired the earnest money to Thering’s non-IOLTA account to satisfy the judgment. In April 2019, when the complainant inquired about the funds, Thering indicated that he could not deliver the funds to the complainant. Thering failed to safeguard the funds, failed to promptly notify the complainant upon Thering’s receipt of the funds, and failed to promptly deliver the funds to the complainant. Upon conclusion of the contingent fee matter, Thering failed to provide the complainant a written statement reflecting the remittance of settlement funds to the complainant and the method of the determination. Further, Thering failed to communicate with the complainant and Thering failed to respond to the grievance. Thering violated Rules 1.03(a), 1.04(d), 1.14(a), 1.14(b), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $500 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On January 15, 2021, Daniel Robert Thering [#24042023], 44, of Austin, agreed to a 48-month active suspension effective March 15, 2021. The District 9 Grievance Committee found that the complainants hired Thering on March 3, 2016, for representation in a medical malpractice lawsuit against a doctor for injuries that the complainants sustained during a medical procedure on January 30, 2016. On March 19, 2016, Thering filed a plaintiff’s original petition and on March 20, 2016, Thering requested issuance of citation for service on the doctor. Thereafter, Thering neglected the legal matter and failed to have the doctor served with the lawsuit. Further, Thering accepted employment in a legal matter that he should have known was beyond his competence because Thering failed to obtain the necessary medical records and expert reports to prosecute a medical malpractice claim. The complainants made numerous requests for a status of the case, but Thering failed to communicate with them and failed to keep them reasonably informed as to the status of the matter. Further, even though Thering was provided notice of the complainants’ grievance, Thering failed to respond to the grievance. Thering violated Rules 1.01(a), 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.03(b), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $500 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

PUBLIC REPRIMANDS
On January 7, 2021, Devin Michelle AuClair [#24069065], 34, of Fort Worth, agreed to a public reprimand. An investigatory panel of the District 7 Grievance Committee found that in 2018, AuClair was representing the complainant in criminal matters. The complainant had a court-ordered bond condition of “Do not possess or consume any alcoholic beverage.” During her representation of the complainant, AuClair and the complainant drank alcoholic beverages together on multiple occasions. The complainant had a court-ordered bond condition of “No contact with [victims] in any manner, including third party contact.” During her representation of the complainant, AuClair socialized with the complainant and the victims together on multiple occasions, during which drinking alcoholic beverages by the adults was involved. AuClair assisted the complainant in engaging in conduct that she knew was fraudulent. AuClair engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. AuClair violated Rules 1.02(c) and 8.04(a)(3). She was ordered to pay $500 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On February 24, 2021, Stephen Dale Howen [#10117800], 60, of Waco, accepted a public reprimand. An investigatory panel of the District 8 Grievance Committee found that on August 15, 2018, the complainant paid Howen a $500 fee to file a long-term care claim with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs on behalf of the complainant’s in-laws. During his representation of the complainant’s in-laws, Howen neglected the matter by failing to file a long-term care claim and failing to keep the complainant informed of the matter, despite the complainant’s requests. Howen also failed to file a response to the complainant’s complaint. Howen violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), and 8.04(a)(8) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Article X, Section 9, State Bar Rules. He was ordered to pay $500 in restitution.

Full Article & Source:

Nine Judges and Lawyers Disciplined on April List

28 Lawyers & Judges Publically Disciplined on January List

By Mary Flood

Disciplinary Actions — January 2021 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

JUDICIAL ACTIONS
On October 28, 2020, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public warning and order of additional education to Kelly Crow, justice of the peace, Precinct 3, Katy, Fort Bend County.

On October 28, 2020, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public warning and order of additional education to Ursula Hall, judge of the 165th Civil District Court, Houston, Harris County. This sanction is currently on appeal before the Special Court of Review.

On October 28, 2020, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public admonition and order of additional education to Robert Richter, municipal court judge, Missouri City, Fort Bend County.

SUSPENSIONS
On November 30, 2020, Morgan Anthony Bourque [#24062627], 41, of The Woodlands, accepted a one-year partially probated suspension effective December 1, 2020, with the first month actively suspended and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 3 Grievance Committee found that Bourque paid and gave something of value to a person not licensed to practice law, for soliciting prospective clients for, or referring clients or prospective clients to Bourque for representation. Bourque violated Rule 7.03(b). He was ordered to pay $2,606 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On October 30, 2020, David Nathaniel Harvey [#24040049], 55, of Houston, accepted a 42-month fully probated suspension effective November 1, 2020. An investigatory panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee found that Harvey frequently failed to carry out completely his obligations to his client, 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. Additionally, Harvey failed to timely respond to the grievance. Harvey violated Rules 1.01(b)(2), 1.03(a), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $55,000 in restitution and $1,000 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

Rest of the state

JUDICIAL ACTIONS
On November 12, 2020, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public warning and order of additional education to William C. Bosworth Jr., judge of the 413th Judicial District Court, Cleburne, Johnson County.

On November 12, 2020, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public admonition to Bill Metzger, former justice of the peace, Precinct 2, Place 2, Mesquite, Dallas County.

On November 12, 2020, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public warning to Ken Molberg, former judge of the 95th Civil District Court, Dallas, Dallas County.

On October 28, 2020, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public warning and order of additional education to Lisa R. Woodard, justice of the peace, Precinct 8, Fort Worth, Tarrant County.

On December 3, 2020, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public warning (nunc pro tunc) to Ken Molberg, former judge of the 95th Civil District Court, Dallas, Dallas County.

BODA
On November 6, 2020, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals issued a judgment revoking probation and actively suspending respondent from the practice of law for Dallas attorney Ward Brackett Bennett Davison [#24066787], 40, from an agreed judgment of partially probated suspension by the evidentiary panel of the State Bar of Texas District 6 Grievance Committee. Respondent appeared pro se. BODA Cause No. 64755.

On October 27, 2020, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals signed a default judgment of disbarment against Nicholasville, Kentucky, attorney Cassidy Ann Teater [#24080044], 35. On or about January 27, 2020, an order of enforcement was issued in the Supreme Court of Tennessee in In Re: Cassidy Teater, An Attorney Licensed to Practice Law in Kentucky and Texas, Case No. M2020-00101-SC-BAR-BP, BOPR No. 2019-2987-0-AJ, disbarring Teater from the practice of law in the state of Tennessee. BODA Cause No. 64721.

On October 2, 2020, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals signed an agreed judgment of probated suspension against Frisco attorney Alex James Washington Jr. [#24107554], 50. On or about July 2, 2020, an attorney disciplinary proceeding opinion was entered by the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana in Case No. 2020-B-0577, suspending Washington from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day. BODA Cause No. 64776.

DISBARMENTS
On October 5, 2020, Cynthia Rachelle Wil Cole [#24035579], 47, of Forney, was disbarred, effective September 11, 2020. The District 1 Grievance Committee found that beginning in 2008, Cole was hired by the complainants for representation in civil and bankruptcy matters. Throughout Cole’s representation of the complainants, Cole neglected the legal matters entrusted to her, failed to keep the complainants reasonably informed, failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, and failed to explain the matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the complainants to make informed decisions regarding the representation. Cole made multiple misrepresentations to the complainants about the status of their legal matters and engaged in repeated fraudulent conduct, including, fabricating and/or forging court orders, settlement agreements, travel expenses, and legal work performed. Cole unlawfully appropriated $326,953 from the complainants in violation of Texas Penal Code 31.03(e)(7). Due to Cole’s professional misconduct, sanctions were ordered against the complainants and the complainants paid a judgment in the amount of approximately $160,000. Cole failed to respond to the grievance. Cole violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.03(b), 8.04(a)(2), 8.04(a)(3), and 8.04(a)(8). She was ordered to pay $486,953 in restitution and $2,462 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On October 7, 2020, Kimberly Dian Smith [#24041944], 42, of Longview, was disbarred. An evidentiary panel of the District 1 Grievance Committee found that in June 2017, Smith was hired to represent the complainant’s daughter with regard to divorce and child custody matters. In representing the complainant’s daughter, Smith neglected the legal matter entrusted to her by failing to perform legal work on the case after the initial pleadings were filed. Smith failed to keep the complainant’s daughter reasonably informed about the status of her divorce and child custody matters and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information from the complainant’s daughter about the cases. Additionally, Smith failed to respond to the grievance. Smith violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), and 8.04(a)(8). She was ordered to pay $2,926.75 in attorneys’ fees and expenses.

RESIGNATIONS
On November 10, 2020, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation, in lieu of discipline, of Brigida Rodriguez [#24046743], 65, of Richardson. At the time of Rodriguez’s resignation there were two pending matters against her alleging professional misconduct. In the first matter, the complainant hired Rodriguez to start the adoption process to adopt her grandson on August 31, 2017. The complainant paid Rodriguez $4,000. Rodriguez neglected the legal matter, failed to communicate with the complainant, failed to return the unearned legal fee, and failed to respond to the notice of grievance. In the second matter, the complainant hired Rodriguez for representation in a family law matter on June 10, 2019. The complainant paid Rodriguez $2,000. Rodriguez frequently failed to carry out completely the obligations owed to the complainant and failed to explain the legal matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the complainant to make informed decisions regarding the representation. Rodriguez failed to return the unearned legal fee. Rodriguez violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.01(b)(2), 1.03(a), 1.03(b), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8).

On November 10, 2020, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation, in lieu of discipline, of Ilya Torchinsky [#24095196], 43, of West Palm Beach, Florida. At the time of Torchinsky’s resignation there were three pending matters against him alleging professional misconduct. On or about October 31, 2019, a judgment was entered by the Supreme Court of Florida in a matter styled In Re: Petition for Disciplinary Revocation of Ilya Torchinsky, Case No. SC19-1416, Lower Tribunal No(s): 2020-70,103(11F-MDR), which granted Torchinsky’s uncontested petition for disciplinary revocation with leave to seek readmission after five years. The judgment stated: “Disciplinary revocation is tantamount to disbarment.” In the petition for disciplinary revocation with leave to reapply for readmission, Torchinsky admitted that he knowingly and voluntarily submitted the petition with full knowledge of its effect. He further admitted that the following disciplinary charges were pending against him: TFB File No. 2019-70,573(11F); 2019-70,574(11F); 2019-70,701(11F); 2020-70(11F); 2020-70,095(11F), involved allegations of conversion of client trust funds by Torchinsky. The Florida Bar File No. 2019-70,500(11F) alleges that petitioner engaged in neglect and lack of communication. In all three pending matters, Torchinsky sent a demand letter and draft complaint from Legal Justice Advocates signed by Torchinsky and a licensed Florida attorney to the complainants stating that their website was in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act of 1988 because the website was not accessible to blind or visually disabled people. The letter demanded that the complainants make their websites readily accessible to and usable by blind and visually impaired individuals and made a demand for “damages, attorney’s fees and costs.” Torchinsky is not listed as one of the attorneys for Legal Justice Advocates despite the demand letter implying that he works for Legal Justice Advocates and represents Victims Awareness as local counsel. The letters and draft complaints identify Torchinsky as “Local Counsel for Plaintiff” but does not contain Torchinsky’s address. At the time the demand letter was sent, Torchinsky was not admitted to practice before the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of Texas or the Western District of Texas. Torchinsky violated Rules 4.01(a), 8.04(a)(3), and 8.05(a).

SUSPENSIONS
On November 24, 2020, Paul Gomez [#24063778], 45, of Little Elm, agreed to an 18-month fully probated suspension effective November 15, 2020. The District 6 Grievance Committee found that in July 2019, the complainant hired Gomez for representation in a divorce matter and discovery requests were served on Gomez. Gomez did not timely respond to the requests and a hearing was held regarding Gomez’s late discovery responses. Gomez did not attend the hearing and the complainant was sanctioned. Gomez neglected the legal matter entrusted to him and failed to carry out completely the obligations Gomez owed to the complainant. By planning to not appear at the properly noticed hearing resulting in the complainant being sanctioned, Gomez failed to explain the discovery matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the complainant to make informed decisions regarding the representation. By not informing the court or opposing counsel that he did not plan to appear at the hearing, Gomez took a position that unreasonably increased the costs or other burdens of the case or that unreasonably delayed resolution of the matter. Gomez violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.01(b)(2), 1.03(b), and 3.02. He was ordered to pay $500 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On October 27, 2020, Richard N. Jeffrey [#24036839], 45, of Harker Heights, received a five-year partially probated suspension (six months active and 54 months probated) related to two disciplinary cases effective December 1, 2020. An evidentiary panel of the District 8 Grievance Committee found that in the first case, Jeffrey was hired, on or about June 5, 2018, to represent a client in a suit to modify the parent child relationship. The client gave Jeffrey a check for $500 as an advanced fee. Rather than place the funds in an escrow or trust account, Jeffrey made the check payable to a third person. Thereafter, at Jeffrey’s request, the client paid Jeffrey another advanced fee of $500 in cash. Thereafter, Jeffrey represented to the client that he was having difficulty serving the opposing party with the petition; however, Jeffrey never filed any pleadings on behalf of the client. When the client discovered that no pleadings had been filed, the client terminated the representation and requested a refund. Jeffrey failed to respond to the client’s request and failed to refund any portion of the fees paid. In a second case, Jeffrey was paid an advanced fee of $1,500, on or about September 12, 2017, to represent a client with regard to a traffic citation and on a motion to revoke or adjudicate community supervision. Jeffrey failed to perform the work for which he was hired and failed to return any portion of the advanced fee paid. Jeffrey further failed to provide written responses to both disciplinary cases. Jeffrey violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.14(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Article X, Section 9, State Bar Rules. He was ordered to pay $2,500 in restitution and $1,315 in attorneys’ fees and expenses.

On October 30, 2020, Dennis R. Martin [#13059400], 71, of San Antonio, agreed to a three-year fully probated suspension effective October 15, 2020. An evidentiary panel of the District 10 Grievance Committee found that Martin neglected a client’s matter and failed to keep a client reasonably informed. Martin violated Rules 1.01(b)(1) and 1.03(a). He was ordered to pay $600 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On November 4, 2020, Omar Maynez-Grijalva [#24043807], 56, of El Paso, accepted a two-year fully probated suspension effective November 6, 2020. The 210th District Court of El Paso County found that Maynez-Grijalva violated Rules 1.08(a) and 1.08(g) [business transactions with client]; 1.14(b) [failing to promptly notify third party and deliver settlement funds]; 1.14(c) [failing to disburse to third parties]; 8.01(b) [knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information]; 8.04(a)(3) [conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation]; and 8.04(a)(8) [failing to respond to a grievance in a timely fashion]. Maynez-Grijalva violated Rules 1.08(a), 1.08(g), 1.14(b), 1.14(c), 8.01(b), 8.04(a)(3), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $4,211.96 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On October 13, 2020, Stuart R. Oliphint [#00789526], 61, of Fort Worth, received a 36-month partially probated suspension effective November 1, 2020, with the first six months actively suspended and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 7 Grievance Committee found that on April 14, 2018, the complainant hired Oliphint for representation in a criminal case. The complainant paid a legal fee of $4,000 to Oliphint for the representation. In representing the complainant, Oliphint neglected the legal matter entrusted to him. Oliphint failed to explain the matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the complainant to make informed decisions regarding the representation. Upon termination of representation, Oliphint failed to refund payments of the fee that had not been earned. Additionally, Oliphint failed to respond to the grievance. Oliphint violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(b), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $4,000 in restitution and $1,461.50 in attorneys’ fees and costs.

On October 23, 2020, Lloyd Eugene Ward [#20845100], 59, of Dallas, received a 36-month fully probated suspension effective March 7, 2020. The 191st Civil District Court of Dallas County found that Ward committed professional misconduct by violating Rule 3.03(a)(1) [A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal]. Ward was ordered to pay $19,216.74 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

PUBLIC REPRIMANDS
On November 9, 2020, C. Bruce Abraham [#00819800], 70, of Marshall, entered into an agreed judgment of public reprimand. An investigatory panel found that the complainant hired Abraham to represent him in a divorce case. Abraham neglected the legal matter entrusted to him, failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed about the status of his divorce case, and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information from the complainant. Abraham also failed to file a response to the grievance. Abraham violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $250 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On November 16, 2020, John-Paul Chidgey [#24035419], 47, of Fort Worth, agreed to a public reprimand. The District 7 Grievance Committee found that in March 2019, the complainant hired Chidgey for representation in a medical practice matter. Chidgey neglected the legal matter entrusted to him by allowing the statute of limitation to expire. Chidgey failed to explain the matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the complainant to make informed decisions regarding the representation. Chidgey violated Rules 1.01(b)(1) and 1.03(b). He was ordered to pay $500 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On October 26, 2020, Arthur David Courtade [#04891000], 73, of Fort Worth, agreed to a public reprimand. The District 7 Grievance Committee found that upon termination of representation, Courtade informed the complainant that he was experiencing a health issue and would provide any information and paperwork that the complainant might need regarding the case. Thereafter, Courtade failed to respond to the grievance. Courtade violated Rules 1.15(d) and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $200 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On November 24, 2020, Ryan Edward Huie [#24055700], 42, of Austin, received a public reprimand related to four disciplinary cases. An investigatory panel of the District 8 Grievance Committee found that in the first case, Huie was paid $5,000, in August 2018, to defend a client in a DWI matter. On November 7, 2019, Huie failed to appear for a scheduled court hearing and notify the client that he would not be attending the hearing. Additionally, Huie failed to inform his client and the court that his license to practice law had been administratively suspended, in compliance with Rule 13.01 of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Subsequently, after Huie was terminated by the client, he failed to withdraw from the representation and to take the steps reasonably practicable to protect the client’s interests. Additionally, Huie was found to have neglected the client’s case and failed to maintain reasonable communication with the client regarding the matter. In the second case, the panel found that Huie was paid $1,800, in November 2018, to represent a client in a criminal matter. During his representation of the client, Huie failed to appear for a scheduled court hearing and failed to inform the client and the court in writing that his license to practice law was administratively suspended, in compliance with Rule 13.01 of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Additionally, Huie failed to withdraw from the case and to take steps reasonably practicable to protect the client’s interests after he was terminated. Huie also failed to respond to the client’s numerous communication attempts, thus failing to maintain reasonable communication with the client regarding her case. In the third case, the panel found that after Huie was paid $2,000 to represent a client in a criminal matter, he failed to appear for a scheduled court hearing and failed to inform the client and the court that his license to practice law was administratively suspended, in compliance with Rule 13.01 of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Additionally, after Huie was terminated by the client, he failed to withdraw from the case and to take steps reasonably practicable to protect the client’s interests. Huie also failed to maintain reasonable communication with the client regarding his case. In the fourth case, the panel found Huie was paid $6,000, in July 2018, to represent a client in multiple criminal matters and failed to appear for two scheduled court hearings in 2019. Additionally, the panel found Huie failed to inform the client and the court that his license to practice law was administratively suspended, in compliance with Rule 13.01 of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Subsequently, after Huie was terminated by the client, he failed to withdraw from the client’s representation and to take steps reasonably practicable to protect the client’s interests. Further, Huie failed to respond to the client’s numerous communication attempts, thus failing to maintain reasonable communication with the client regarding his case. Huie violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(a)(1), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(10) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Article X, Section 9, State Bar Rules. He was ordered to pay $2,500 in restitution in the first case.

On November 17, 2020, Ben L. Ivey III [#24032462], 46, of El Paso, accepted a public reprimand. An investigatory panel of the District 17 Grievance Committee found that Ivey failed to promptly notify and deliver funds to parties entitled to receive funds. Ivey violated Rule 1.14(b). He was ordered to pay $2,800 in restitution and $750 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

Full Article & Source:

28 Lawyers & Judges Publically Disciplined on January List