| July 1998 |
Attorneys DisciplinedGreg Clark By Supreme Court Order December 2, 1997, Greg Clark, 45 W. Jefferson, Phoenix, was censured for conduct in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In this matter Clark represented a minor in a juvenile transfer proceeding in which the minor was transferred to adult court. The decision to transfer was reversed by the Court of Appeals on the basis that Clark had rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Clark did not present a second psychological evaluation or call the psychologist as a witness even though the evaluation was actually completed and available prior to the transfer hearing. Clark failed to cross-examine the court-appointed psychologist and the probation officer. He also failed to interview any of the State's witnesses, never interviewed or called any witnesses to testify on his client's behalf and failed to present evidence which might have mitigated against transfer. He also failed to argue for the juvenile transfer deferral program. Clark's conduct was in violation of ER 1.1, ER 1.3 and ER 1.4, Ariz.R.S.Ct. Clark was also assessed the State Bar's costs in the amount of $278.26, together with interest. C. Peter Delgado, Jr. By Supreme Court Judgment and Order dated January 23, 1998, C. Peter Delgado, Jr., P.O. Box 837, Sells, Arizona, was suspended for a conditional period of 18 months. At the end of 18 months suspension if Delgado can submit proof that his participation in the State Bar's Membership Assistance Program was successful and that he abstained from alcohol and illegal drugs throughout the period, he may apply for reinstatement. If he cannot, his suspension shall continue for an additional 18 months, becoming a three-year suspension. Delgado's conduct in this matter related to his conduct while employed as an associate in the firm of Shimmel, Hill, Bishop & Gruender. While there, Delgado caused 15 firm checks to be issued to himself allegedly representing reimbursement for trips made to and from the Tohono O'Odham Reservation and Tucson. The checks totaled $1,243.20. In fact, Delgado did not make any of those trips. In addition, in three separate matters, Delgado submitted false billing statements and time sheets to his firm. Delgado's conduct was in violation of ER 1.3, ER 1.5, ER 4.1 and ER 8.4. Delgado's conduct was mitigated in large part because he was experiencing a number of significant personal and emotional problems at the time of the misconduct. Delgado was also ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $1,243.20 to Shimmel, Hill, Bishop & Gruender and costs to the State Bar in the amount of $1,328.26. Joseph J. Hessinger By Supreme Court Order dated April 30, 1998, Joseph J. Hessinger was placed on interim suspension. Hessinger shall remain on interim suspension pending resolution of the disciplinary charges pending against him. Michael E. St. George By Supreme Court order dated February 19, 1998, Michael E. St. George, 440 East Southern, Tempe, Arizona, was censured for conduct in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. This sanction was based on a Tender of Admissions and Agreement for Discipline by Consent adopted by the Disciplinary Commission. St. George's conduct involved his failure to investigate or recognize that he was being used by Stephen Mirretti and Steve Papp to defraud the Tempe Municipal Court of more than $27,000. At the time the conduct occurred, Mirretti was the presiding judge of the Tempe Municipal Court. In 1992, Mirretti contacted St. George and told him that he would be doing part-time magistrate work for municipalities other than Tempe. He stated that he was to be paid by an entity named TEND, Inc. Mirretti asked St. George if he would be willing to set up a system under which St. George would accept TENDS' payments to Mirretti. Mirretti explained that he needed such a system to provide documentation and verification in the event of an audit. St. George agreed to set up the system. St. George and Mirretti agreed that St. George would be paid his hourly rate for his time spent in creating and handling the system. At all times, St. George viewed his firm as a sub-contractor, providing TEND with administrative services and that TEND would provide various municipalities with services. In 1992, St. George confirmed the arrangement with TEND by writing to Steve Papp of TEND. Papp responded with a letter to St. George confirming St. George's agreement to provide legal services to TEND which in turn provided legal and court services on a temporary basis to other municipalities. St. George set up the system as planned. He sent monthly billing statements to both TEND and Mirretti and accepted TEND's checks and disbursed funds to Mirretti. Between September 1992 and March 1993, St. George received a total of thirteen checks from TEND totaling $27,962.90, which he then paid to Mirretti. St. George paid himself a total of $862.50 during this time period for his costs and time. Mirretti never provided St. George with any billing statement or other documentation showing he earned the money, and TEND never provided St. George with any kind of statement describing the exact services Mirretti had performed to earn the payment. In March, 1994, St. George read of Mirretti's resignation from the bench and learned that TEND had no contracts to provide any magistrate services to any municipality. Upon reading this, St. George informed the Arizona attorney general's office of the payments from TEND to Mirretti. In reality, the money sent to St. George by TEND for disbursement to Mirretti had been stolen from the Tempe Municipal Court and constituted a kickback to Mirretti. St. George was informed by the attorney general that he would be charged with money laundering, a Class 3 felony with a minimum sentence of 3-3/4 years for each count, and the attorney general claimed that each of the 13 checks constituted a separate offense. In addition, the prosecution needed to show only that St. George had "reason to know" that the funds did not belong to Mirretti. In light of these factors, St. George entered a plea agreement in which he agreed to plead guilty to one count of theft. St. George's probation officer recommended one year of unsupervised probation, restitution and community service. The probation officer noted that St. George never would have been involved "had it not been for Judge Mirretti's exploitation and manipulation..." The probation officer recounted St. George's history of community activities and concluded that his behavior represented a complete departure not only from St. George's "law-abiding lifestyle" but from his "civic awareness and family devotion." St. George was sentenced to one year of unsupervised probation, community service and restitution, and the court noted that St. George's conduct was a "technical violation of the law" and that St. George lacked any specific criminal intent. Rather than waiting for the probation to end, the judge immediately designated the offense a Class 1 misdemeanor. In the agreement for discipline by consent, St. George acknowledges, in retrospect, that the mechanism he set up was the conduit by which stolen money was passed. As such, St. George's conduct violated ER 8.4(d). He was also assessed the State Bar's costs in the amount of $1,244.21. James E. Sherman By Supreme Court Order dated April 10, 1998, James E. Sherman, P.O. Box 1102, Bisbee, was censured and placed on two years probation for conduct in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct in two separate matters. He was also ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $750 to his client in one of the cases. In one case, Sherman was retained to assist a client in an unpaid wage claim against a third party. After obtaining a judgment on the client's behalf, Sherman failed to diligently pursue collection of the judgment, and failed to adequately communicate with the client regarding the collection. In another case, Sherman represented the plaintiff in a domestic relations matter. Sherman's client, the respondent in the divorce, lived in Alaska. After taking the case, Sherman accepted employment with the Cochise County Attorney's Office. He did not withdraw from the representation of his client or notify his client of his intent to withdraw until the date set for hearing. Because the client was not previously notified Sherman was withdrawing, the client traveled from Alaska to Arizona for the hearing, which had to be continued. The court ordered Sherman to pay his client $750 in travel costs. In both matters, Sherman failed to cooperate with the State Bar, in violation of Rule 51 (h) and (i), Ariz.R.S.Ct. Sherman's conduct was in violation of ER 1.3, 1.4, 8.4, and Rule 51 (e), (h) and (i), Ariz.R.S.Ct. He was also assessed the State Bar's costs in the amount of $844.65. |