Baker, In re

Decision Date07 July 1967
Docket NumberNo. 8998,8998
CitationBaker, In re, 429 P.2d 665, 102 Ariz. 346 (Ariz. 1967)
PartiesIn the Matter of a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Richard H. BAKER, Respondent.
CourtArizona Supreme Court

Clyde E. Douglas, Phoenix, for the State Bar of Arizona.

Richard H. Baker, in pro. per.

PER CURIAM.

This is a disbarment proceeding. A complaint against Richard H. Baker (hereinafter referred to as respondent) accusing him of unethical conduct as a member of the Bar of this state was filed with the Local Administrative Committee for District No. 4 of the State Bar.

This complaint was heard by the Administrative Committee at which time the respondent conducted his own defense. The proceedings were transcribed by a reporter and a transcript of these notes are a part of the files. A majority of the Committee found the respondent guilty of two of the charges and dismissed a third charge.

Thereafter on July 26, 1966, the Administrative Committee made the following findings:

'Respondent acted as attorney for Grace L. Ellenberger from 1956 until her death on September 23, 1963. On August 30, 1963, while Mrs. Ellenberger was ill and hospitalized, the Respondent was employed as attorney for Mrs. Ellenberger to take custody of approximately $1,700.00 of her funds and to pay her financial obligations and carry on her affairs.

'Approximately $1,700.00 of her funds belonging to Grace L. Ellenberger were entrusted to Respondent for these purposes. Said funds were not used for the purpose for which they were entrusted to Respondent, but were commingled with Respondent's own funds. Respondent admittedly converted the sum of $450.00 of said funds to his own use.

'Respondent has engaged in unprofessional and unethical conduct violative of the canons and ethics of the profession of an attorney at law including Canons 11 and 12 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, and Section 32--267(6) and (8) A.R.S.

'Respondent was employed as an attorney in April 1962, by Mr. Ted Fio Rito and in addition commencing in March 1964, as attorney for Ted Fio Rito Enterprises, Inc., a corporation. That during the years 1962 to October 1965, Mr. Fio Rito was engaged in the orchestra business. On behalf of himself and as President of Ted Fio Rito Enterprises, Inc. when it was organized Mr. Fio Rito entrusted Respondent with funds amounting to not less than $7,874.61 for the purpose of paying financial obligations of Mr. Fio Rito and for the purpose of carrying out the business affairs of Mr. Fio Rito and Ted Fio Rito Enterprises, Inc.

'The Respondent did not use the funds for the purpose for which they were entrusted to him, but commingled them with Re...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
2 cases
  • Talbot v. Schroeder
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • October 23, 1970
    ...is bound to discharge his duties to his client with strictest fidelity and to observe the highest and utmost good faith. In re Baker, 102 Ariz. 346, 429 P.2d 665 (1967); In re Greer, 52 Ariz. 385, 81 P.2d 96 (1938). At the same time, an attorney is not liable to a client when acting in good......
  • Brown, In re
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • April 9, 1969
    ...we have held that conduct by an attorney similar to that set forth above was unconscionable and required disbarment. In re Baker, 102 Ariz. 346, 429 P.2d 665; In re Bixler, 96 Ariz. 59, 391 P.2d 917; In re Fellows, 57 Ariz. 224, 112 P.2d Our examination of the record substantiates the findi......
3 books & journal articles
  • TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
    • United States
    • State Bar of Arizona Ins and Outs of Foreclosures Table of Authorities
    • Invalid date
    ...5-91In re Bagley, 6 B.R. 387 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1980)..................................................... 5-79In re Baker, 102 Ariz. 346, 429 P.2d 665 (1967)................................................... 13-12In re Baldwin-United Corp., 48 B.R. 901 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1985).....................
  • 1.2:250 LAWYER's DUTIES TO CLIENT IN GENERAL
    • United States
    • State Bar of Arizona Legal Ethics Handbook I Client-lawyer Relationship
    • Invalid date
    ...has a duty of utmost good faith to the client and is bound to discharge the duties to the client with strict fidelity. In re Baker, 102 Ariz. 346, 429 P.2d 665 (1967). This duty of good faith includes the obligation to keep the client apprised of matters that may adversely affect the client......
  • 13.8.3 Multiple Representation Issues.
    • United States
    • State Bar of Arizona Ins and Outs of Foreclosures 13 Professional Ethics and Foreclosures( Section 13.1 - Section 13.9)
    • Invalid date
    ...to discharge his or her client duties with fidelity. See, e.g., In re Neville, 147 Ariz. 106, 708 P.2d 1297 (1985); In re Baker, 102 Ariz. 346, 429 P.2d 665 (1967) (per curiam). And a lawyer cannot limit the objectives of representation to such an extent that the client is deprived of compe......