| April 1998 |
Attorneys DisciplinedBrent B. Bradshaw By Supreme Court order dated June 26, 1997, Brent Bradshaw, 7150 E. Camelback, Suite 300, Phoenix, was suspended for 30 days and placed on two years probation for conduct in violation of the Rules of the Supreme Court in three unrelated matters. In all three matters Bradshaw failed to cooperate with the State Bar, in violation of ER 8.1(b) and Rules 51(h) and (i), Ariz.R.S.Ct. In two of the matters, the underlying allegations were not proven by clear and convincing evidence. In the third matter, Bradshaw was retained to represent a client regarding misconduct with weapons charges. During the course of this representation, Bradshaw concluded that he could not file a motion for release on the client’s behalf because he determined that the motion would be based on perjured testimony. Bradshaw did not inform his client of his decision not to file the motion. Bradshaw also failed to give him an accounting of service and expenses when requested. In addition, while representing the same client, he also began helping the client’s wife prepare her pro se petition for dissolution of her marriage to the client. Bradshaw failed to consult his client about the conflict. Bradshaw’s conduct in this matter violated ER 1.4 and ER 1.7. He was also assessed the State Bar’s costs in the amount of $4,268.72. Louie Carrasco By Supreme Court order dated September 11, 1997, Louie Carrasco, P.O. Box 2243, Tucson, was suspended from the practice of law for six months for violating the Rules of Professional Conduct in three separate matters. Upon reinstatement, Carrasco will be placed on two years’ probation. In the first matter, Carrasco represented a husband and wife in their bankruptcy. During the bankruptcy proceeding, one of the creditors filed a motion to lift the automatic stay. Carrasco failed to file a timely response. Although Carrasco informed his clients that the lift would be granted, he did not inform them it was due to his failure to timely respond. When his clients subsequently informed him of an impending sheriff’s sale of their home, Carrasco failed to move for a stay of the trustee’s sale. The sale was held, the home was sold and Carrasco failed to move for reconsideration. Carrasco also failed to respond to State Bar inquiries. In the second matter, Carrasco was retained by a client for representation in a lawsuit that had been filed against him concerning a real estate transaction. Carrasco filed a late answer and a default judgment was taken against his client. Carrasco failed to inform his client of the default judgment hearing, and judgment was entered in the amount of $5,944.93. Carrasco took no steps to set aside the default and failed to notify his client of the judgment. In addition, while Carrasco was representing this client, he was the officer in a corporation owned by someone who had some liability to the clients regarding the real estate transaction. Carrasco failed to document his agreement to indemnify the client in writing and failed to document the potential conflict of interest. In the third matter, it was discovered during a LOMAP audit that Carrasco had failed to maintain an IOLTA trust account, failed to use individual client ledgers, failed to maintain all trust account records, and improperly used an ATM card with regard to his client trust account. However, no client funds were misappropriated. Carrasco’s conduct was in violation of ER 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.7, 1.15 and ER 8.1(b) and Rules 43, 44 and 51(h) and (i), Ariz.R.S.Ct. He was also assessed the State Bar’s costs in the amount of $1,296.40.
Ernesto R. Castro By Supreme Court Order dated December 26, 1997, Ernesto R. Castro, 830 S. Main, Cottonwood, was disbarred from the practice of law for conduct in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct in eight separate matters. Castro was also assessed the State Bar’s costs in the amount of $2,130.52. In the first matter, Castro settled a personal injury lawsuit and disbursed the proceeds to himself and his client, but failed to honor a statutory lien. After the lienholder obtained a judgment against Castro, he failed to pay the judgment and frustrated efforts to collect on it. In an unrelated criminal case, Castro failed to competently or diligently represent his client and failed to adequately communicate with him. In the third matter, Castro failed to pay legal fees to his own attorney in a civil case and failed to cooperate in post-judgment proceedings after his attorney obtained a judgment against him. Castro was found in contempt, a bench warrant was issued for his arrest, and sanctions were imposed against him. In another matter, Castro failed to create a written fee agreement for a contingency case, failed to enter into a written fee agreement with his co-counsel, and split the fees received with a non-lawyer employee. After the case settled, the minor party’s mother was appointed conservator. Castro failed to comply with court orders directing the funds to be held in a restricted account, and violated the orders by making disbursements without court approval. The minor subsequently asked Castro to assist in removing her mother as conservator, but he did not do so. Five years later, when the minor turned 18, no funds remained. Castro also failed to provide an accounting of the settlement proceeds as ordered by the court and charged unreasonable fees and costs, which were not submitted to the court for approval, as required. Castro received another settlement check without court approval and then failed to get the mother appointed as conservator for those funds. He never accounted for those proceeds and refused to cooperate with the client’s subsequent counsel. In another case, Castro failed to return telephone calls, failed to keep the client informed, and failed to comply with court orders relating to payment of an expert witness. Summary judgment was entered against his clients when he failed to obtain an expert witness. In an unrelated criminal matter, Castro failed to communicate with his client about a scheduled court hearing, resulting in the client’s arrest for failing to appear. In a separate criminal matter, Castro failed to provide information to his client regarding his Rule 32 petition and failed to return the client’s personal property. In the eighth matter, a personal injury case, Castro allowed a non-lawyer assistant to handle the matter and provide legal advice. Castro’s office failed to handle the case competently or diligently, and failed to return the client’s file or respond to requests for information. Castro failed to advise three clients of a prior suspension from the practice of law and failed to respond to the State Bar’s inquiries into each of the eight matters. Castro’s conduct violated ER 1.1, ER 1.3, ER 1.4, ER 1.5, ER 1.7, ER 1.15, ER 1.16, ER 3.3, ER 3.4, ER 4.1, ER 5.2, ER 5.4, ER 8.1, ER 8.4, Rule 51(i) and Rule 63, Ariz.R.S.Ct. James Peyton Collins By Supreme Court order dated July 2, 1997, James P. Collins, 512 E. Wilson, Suite 200, Glendale, CA, was censured for conduct in violation of the Rules of the Supreme Court in six separate but related matters. Collins is admitted to practice law in both Arizona and California. His practice mainly centered on debt collection. This matter arose when Collins, who was living and practicing in California, took over another Arizona attorney’s Arizona practice. With regard to his Arizona office, Collins gave his collections manager and bookkeeper signatory authority on the firm’s accounts to facilitate the collection and transfer of funds. Within three months of Collins taking over the Arizona practice, the funds collected on behalf of six clients were embezzled by the office staff without his knowledge. Approximately $53,000 was misappropriated. When Collins learned of the misappropriations, he took immediate action. He notified the State Bar and cooperated with the Attorney General in the prosecution of his employees. Collins admitted that the embezzlement occurred as a result of his failure to properly oversee his Arizona office. Collins’ conduct was in violation of ER 1.15, 5.3 and Rules 43 and 44, Ariz.R.S.Ct. He was also assessed the State Bar’s costs in the amount of $1,901.20. Richard T. Fuller By Supreme Court order dated August 12, 1997, Richard T. Fuller, 1017 S. Gilbert, Suite 213, Mesa, was censured for conduct in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Although the underlying charges were not proven by clear and convincing evidence, Fuller failed to cooperate with the State Bar by failing to respond to two letters from the State Bar investigating the underlying misconduct, in violation of ER 8.1(b) and Rule 51(h) and (i), Ariz.R.S.Ct. Fuller was censured because he had been previously informally reprimanded six times. Four of those reprimands involved failure to cooperate with the State Bar. Fuller was also assessed the State Bar’s costs in the amount of $1,173.15. Michael L. Murphy By Supreme Court order dated May 22, 1997, Michael L. Murphy, 6802 N. 36th St., Phoenix, was suspended from the practice of law for one year for conduct in violation of the Rules of the Supreme Court. Murphy was a partner in the firm of Murphy & Posner ("the firm"). Robert Almquist, a Canadian citizen and an Arizona lawyer, was employed by the firm under a work visa. Around April, 1986, Almquist and a commercial broker, James Tuton, formed a limited partnership to buy land in Tempe. The firm did the legal work connected with the purchase. Early in 1987, Almquist and Tuton contracted to buy land in Glendale. Needing cash, they decided to syndicate the purchase. Murphy encouraged Almquist and Tuton to pursue the deal, suggesting that he would be an investor. Murphy helped formulate offers on the property, reviewed the purchase documents before they were signed, and persuaded the promoters to give all related legal work to the firm. Murphy had assured Almquist and Tuton that he would purchase 20 shares of the limited partnership. On the eve of the purchase deadline, Murphy refused to proceed unless they personally guaranteed a 10 percent annual return on the investment. Murphy, with the guarantee, signed an agreement obligating him and his children’s trust to five shares each. He also arranged for one of his clients, the trustees of the Nancy Hopkins Trust, to do the same. When the real estate market declined, the partnership defaulted on the 1990 obligation and the property was lost to foreclosure. A year earlier, Murphy had left the firm and formed the new firm of Murphy & Associates. In 1991 that firm filed two lawsuits on behalf of the Nancy Hopkins Trust against Almquist and Tuton. Murphy’s use of confidential information violated ER 1.6. He also engaged in multiple conflicts of interest in violation of ER 1.7, ER 1.8 and ER 1.9. He was also assessed the State Bar’s costs in the amount of $7,450.60. Henri L. Sadacca, II By Supreme Court order dated June 10, 1997, Henri L. Sadacca, II, 338 N. Granada, Tucson, was suspended for three years retroactive to May 27, 1994, the date he was suspended for failure to comply with MCLE requirements, for conduct in violation of the Rules of the Supreme Court. Upon reinstatement, he will also be placed on probation for two years. Sadacca’s conduct involved five separate matters. In three of the matters, Sadacca failed to cooperate with the State Bar during its initial investigation into the charges in violation of ER 8.1(b) and Rule 51(h) and (i), Ariz.R.S.Ct. In the first matter, Sadacca failed to keep a client advised as to the status of his case or respond to his requests for information. Although he performed a substantial amount of work for the client, he never resolved the case. In the second matter, Sadacca was retained by a client in connection with his purchase of a business. In preparing the sales contract, Sadacca failed to include terms specifically requested by his client. Approximately six months later, on behalf of the same client, Sadacca filed a lawsuit against the seller for rescission and fraud, but he named the wrong party in the lawsuit. After a motion to dismiss was granted, Sadacca was given the opportunity to file an amended complaint, but failed to do so. The client was thereafter assessed attorney’s fees, costs and other sanctions. Sadacca failed to advise his client of the dismissal or of the fees sanctions that had been assessed against him. In the third matter, Sadacca was retained by partners in a travel agency to file a Chapter 11 bankruptcy on their behalf. Sadacca received a $5000 retainer plus $7500 in travel. Sadacca failed to obtain authorization from the Bankruptcy Court to accept fees and failed to adequately instruct the partner as to what business transactions they could undertake. Later, Sadacca converted the Chapter 11 to a Chapter 7 but failed to file an order or notice of hearing. Sadacca also received $2000 from the last client to pay off a contract. However, as a result of a Bankruptcy Court ruling, the funds were not used for that purpose but were used to pay off another creditor without the authorization and approval of the client. In the fourth matter, Sadacca was retained by a husband and wife for representation in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. As a result of a lack of action, it was converted to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The clients were not advised until after the fact. The case was then converted to a Chapter 13. It was dismissed for the clients’ failure to pay arrearages to the trustee and failure to file appropriate documents. After the case was reinstated, Sadacca failed to appear at a ยง 341 meeting. In the final matter, Sadacca was retained by a couple for assistance in selling their business. He failed to maintain adequate communication regarding the constantly changing terms of the transaction and failed to adequately document the changed terms. Sadacca’s conduct was in violation of ER 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.7, 1.16(d), 3.4(c) and ER 8.4. He was also ordered to pay the State Bar’s costs in the amount of $1,844.35. |