Crandall, In re, s. F-300
| Decision Date | 29 December 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 880325,Nos. F-300,F-311,F-307,s. F-300,880325 |
| Citation | 784 P.2d 1193 |
| Parties | In re Richard K. CRANDALL, Bar |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Christine A. Burdick, Toni Marie Sutliff, Salt Lake City, Office of Bar Counsel.
Hans Chamberlain, Salt Lake City, Bd. of Bar Com'rs.
Robert G. Norton, Salt Lake City, for Richard K. Crandall.
Richard K. Crandall challenges the recommendation of the Board of Commissioners of the Utah State Bar that he be disbarred. Crandall's appeal of the recommendation of discipline was untimely under rule XIV of the Procedures of Discipline of the Utah State Bar. 1 Because no appeal was taken within the specified thirty-day period, this Court entered an order accepting and implementing the recommendation of discipline. Shortly after this Court entered its order, Crandall filed this untimely appeal. Because of the seriousness of the issues presented in this appeal and their implications for our supervisory function in attorney discipline, we vacate our order approving the Bar's recommendation of discipline and waive the time-limitation requirement of rule XIV. Thus, we treat Crandall's appeal as if it had been a properly and timely instigated appeal of the Bar's recommendation of discipline.
Mr. Crandall has been the subject of six Bar complaints: F-202, F-239, F-276, F-300, F-307, and F-311. This appeal is technically only an appeal of the recommendation of discipline in the F-300, F-307, and F-311 complaints (F-300 series), which were consolidated by the disciplinary panel of the Bar on the motion of Bar counsel. The Bar recommended as a sanction in the F-300 series that Crandall be disbarred. However, Crandall also addresses another set of complaints, F-202, F-239, and F-276 (F-200 series), in his brief. The Bar argues that Crandall cannot attack the F-200 series because his time for appeal of those orders passed before the F-300 series appeal was taken. See Procedures of Discipline Rule XIV. However, as explained in more detail below, because the actions taken by the Bar in the F-200 series were so closely connected to events surrounding the F-300 series, we exercise our equitable powers with respect to the first series as well.
Crandall raises many issues on appeal. His most compelling argument, however is that rule XX of the Procedures of Discipline is an unfair and inappropriate rule. Rule XX permits the Bar to suspend attorneys for failure to pay license fees and then to continue that suspension for unrelated reasons, giving the Bar a summary method of handling disciplinary problems. Crandall argues that since all disciplinary actions taken against him by the Bar in both the F-200 and the F-300 series were ultimately connected to his treatment pursuant to rule XX, the recommendations of discipline of the Bar must be rejected. In large part, we agree with this argument and therefore vacate our previous orders accepting the recommendations of discipline in the F-200 series and reject the recommendations of discipline in both the F-200 series complaints and the F-300 series complaints. We do not disturb, however, the original probation order imposed in the F-202 complaint. Pursuant to our supervisory authority, we also strike the language of rule XX under which Crandall's suspension for failure to pay his license fee was continued for an unreasonable amount of time. 2
On May 15, 1987, Crandall received a letter from the Utah State Bar stating that, pursuant to rule XX, he had been dropped from the roll of qualified attorneys authorized to practice law for failure to pay his 1987 license fee. After receiving this letter, Crandall contacted the Bar, suspecting a mistake on the Bar's part since he was under the impression that his bookkeeper had paid the fee. Crandall claims that his failure to pay his fee was due to a misunderstanding with his bookkeeper regarding the time of payment. Crandall offered to hand-deliver his delinquent fee to the Bar but was told that he would have to submit the delinquent fee, along with a written request for acceptance of the fee, to the Bar Commission's executive committee. After submitting such a request, Crandall was informed, on July 8, 1987, that any action on his request would have to wait until a full meeting of the executive committee scheduled for July 31, 1987. On August 4, 1987, the Bar informed Crandall that the executive committee had deferred action on his petition for reinstatement until their next meeting, to be held on August 28, 1987.
On August 21, 1987, Crandall appeared before a Bar hearing panel on the F-202 complaint, a separate matter which had predated his administrative suspension. The purpose of the hearing was to review the probation requirements which had been imposed upon Crandall in the F-202 matter. The F-202 probation required that Crandall file monthly reports regarding his legal practice. Crandall alleges that his indefinite suspension from the practice of law for failure to pay his fees from May 1987 impaired his ability to file the required monthly reports. At this hearing, the Bar panel nevertheless recommended that Crandall be suspended retroactively to May 5, 1987, the date on which he had been suspended for not paying his license fee, for failure to file reports under the F-202 probation.
Crandall asserts that he became increasingly distraught and depressed as the suspension for failure to pay his license fee continued to destroy his practice. In October 1987, Bar counsel scheduled hearings on the F-239 and F-276 matters, while Crandall was under the continued rule XX suspension and the suspension for F-202 was still in force. Crandall maintains that he was overwhelmed emotionally from the effects of the administrative suspension and that the suspension seriously and adversely affected his ability to defend himself in the F-239 and F-276 matters.
Crandall argues that rule XX of the Procedures of Discipline provides an unwise and unnecessary means of disciplining attorneys. It allows the Bar, after suspending an attorney for failure to pay the annual licensing fee, to continue suspension for reasons other than the failure to pay the fee after the attorney has tendered his or her delinquent fee. Rule XX provides that after an attorney has been suspended for nonpayment of the licensing fee, the attorney
may apply in writing for re-enrollment by tendering the delinquent fees and a $100.00 filing fee.... Upon receiving the same the Utah State Bar Commission shall accept it and order re-enrollment, unless the Board for some justifiable cause deems it not to be in the best interests of the Bar and the public to do so.
(Emphasis added.) Crandall maintains that the portion of rule XX which allows continued suspension of an attorney after the attorney has tendered the delinquent fee is unnecessary since alternative means are available under rule VII(b)(1) of the Procedures of Discipline for suspending attorneys. Crandall also argues that this portion of rule XX does not provide the procedural safeguards available under rule VII(b)(1). We agree.
Rule VII(b)(1) provides for temporary suspension of an attorney from the practice of law while a disciplinary proceeding involving the attorney is pending. The temporary suspension may be obtained either upon petition by the Bar's Board of Commissioners or the Court's own motion. The rule requires that evidence be presented demonstrating that "the attorney has been convicted of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Higgins v. Salt Lake County
-
In re Discipline of Sonnenreich
...and granted judgment on the pleadings on January 9, 2001.2 In so doing, the district court found that our decision in In re Crandall, 784 P.2d 1193 (Utah 1989), "made clear the necessity for actual notice [prior to suspensions]," and that "it [was] undisputed no actual notice of the alleged......
-
In re Fox
...by this court in furtherance of its duty to regulate the practice of law and may be altered when equity requires. In re Crandall, 784 P.2d 1193, 1195 n. 2 (Utah 1989). The constitutional arguments Fox raises are questions of law, which we review for correctness. Snyder v. Murray City Corp.,......
-
In re Discipline of Alex
...UT 20, ¶ 5, 89 P.3d 127 ("[T]his court generally reviews interpretations of rules for correctness ...."); see also In re Crandall, 784 P.2d 1193, 1195 n. 2 (Utah 1989) ("[T]he Utah Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to govern the practice of law and to discipline Bar members. Th......
-
State Bar News
...discipline upon which the $650 award was based had previously been rejected by the Utah Supreme Court in its decision in In Re: Crandall, 784 P.2d 1193 (Utah 1989); and (2) there, in fact, was no underlying disciplinary action taken with respect to the $150 award. Further, through an admini......