In re Disciplinary Action Against Samborski

• Decision Date: 23 May 2002
• Docket Number: No. C0-00-1380.,C0-00-1380.
• Parties: In re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Steve C. SAMBORSKI, an Attorney at Law of the State of Minnesota.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

644 N.W.2d 402

In re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Steve C. SAMBORSKI, an Attorney at Law of the State of Minnesota.

No. C0-00-1380.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 23, 2002.

Steve C. Samborski, pro se respondent.

Edward J. Cleary, Director, Mary L. Galvin, Asst. Director, Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, St. Paul, MN, for petitioner.

Heard, considered, and decided by the court en banc.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed three petitions for disciplinary action against Steve C. Samborski. The first sought public discipline and the next two sought disbarment. Samborski was personally served with all three petitions, but answered none of them. The director moved for summary relief and we deemed the allegations contained in the three petitions admitted pursuant to Rule 13(b), Rules of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR). We conclude that the facts and circumstances of this case warrant disbarment.

Samborski was admitted to the practice of law in Minnesota in 1989. His disciplinary history consists of an admonition issued in 1998 for refusing to pay a 1991 judgment against him until after the judgment debtor filed an ethics complaint.

Samborski failed to appear at an August 7, 2000, panel hearing. The next day, Samborski was personally served a petition for disciplinary action. The petition contains seven counts of professional misconduct, alleging violations of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(a), 1.5(b), 1.15(a), 1.16(a)(3), 3.2, 3.3(a)(1), 3.4(c), 3.4(d), 4.1, 4.4, 8.1(a)(1), 8.1(a)(3), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d), and Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board Opinions 13 and 15. Samborski did not answer the petition.

On August 8, 2000, the director and Samborski entered into a stipulation for Samborski's temporary suspension from the practice of law. Later that month, we ordered that Samborski be temporarily suspended from the practice of law in Minnesota.

On December 6, 2000, the director filed a supplementary petition for disciplinary action against Samborski. The supplementary petition contains 19 additional counts of professional misconduct, alleging violations of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(a), 1.5(b), 1.5(c), 1.8(a) (1998), 1.15(a), 1.15(b), 1.15(c), 1.16(d), 4.1, 8.1(a)(3), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d), and Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board Opinions 13 and 15. Samborski was personally served with the supplementary petition on January 2, 2001, but did not answer it.

In early 2001, Samborski participated in chemical dependency treatment programs. On January 17, 2001, St. Joseph's Medical Center admitted Samborski to its inpatient chemical dependency program. Samborski's stay was to last from 14 to 21 days. Three days after his admission, the center discharged him at staff request. A few days later, the Brainerd Human Services Center admitted Samborski to its inpatient chemical dependency program. Samborski left the program on January 26, 2001, returned on January 29, 2001, left again on February 2, 2001, returned on February 5, 2001, and was pursuing outpatient treatment as of February 7, 2001.

On February 22, 2001, the director requested independent confirmation of Samborski's participation in the outpatient treatment program and asked him to authorize the release of his medical information. Samborski never returned the release form.

On June 29, 2001, Samborski was personally served with a second supplementary petition for disciplinary action at Hazelden, a treatment center for those addicted to alcohol and other drugs. The second supplementary petition contains one additional count of professional misconduct, alleging violations of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d). Samborski did not answer the second supplementary petition. The director moved for summary relief after Samborski failed to answer the three petitions. We deemed the allegations contained in the petitions admitted pursuant to Rule 13(b), RLPR, and requested written disciplinary proposals. The director recommended disbarment. Instead of a disciplinary proposal, Samborski filed a letter that described his treatment for alcoholism and explained how a prescription medication exacerbated his alcoholism.

Samborski engaged in a wide variety of professional misconduct. The three petitions illustrate his routine and harmful misuse of his attorney license, flagrant non-cooperation with the director, and criminal conduct. While representing his clients, he violated several Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to provide competent representation in violation of Rule 1.1; failing to act with reasonable diligence in violation of Rule 1.3; failing to keep his clients informed in violation of Rule 1.4; charging unreasonable fees in violation of Rule 1.5(a); failing to communicate the basis of his fees in violation of Rule 1.5(b); failing to put a contingent fee agreement in writing in violation of Rule 1.5(c); entering into a business transaction with a client in violation of Rule 1.8(a) (1998); failing to deposit client funds into a trust account in violation of Rule 1.15(a); failing to provide an accounting of fees and expenses in violation of Rule 1.15(b); failing to maintain records of client funds in violation of Rule 1.15(c); failing to withdraw from representation of a client when discharged in violation of Rule 1.16(a)(3); failing to protect his clients' interests upon termination in violation of Rule 1.16(d); failing to expedite litigation in violation of Rule 3.2; making false statements of fact to a tribunal in violation of Rule 3.3(a)(1); disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal in violation of Rule 3.4(c); making frivolous discovery requests in violation of Rule 3.4(d); making false statements of fact or law in violation of Rule 4.1; failing to respect the rights of third parties in violation of Rule 4.4; making a false statement of material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter in violation of Rule 8.1(a)(1); failing to respond to a disciplinary authority's request for information in violation of Rule 8.1(a)(3); and committing professional misconduct in violation of Rule 8.4(a)-(d).

Samborski misappropriated client funds, neglected client matters, and attempted to conceal the misappropriation and neglect. Samborski repeatedly accepted fees without depositing them into a trust account, failed to perform the work for which he was paid, charged clients for expenses he did not incur, refused to return unearned fees, and failed to provide clients with an accounting of fees and expenses. He failed to communicate with clients and failed to pursue client matters diligently. On many occasions, he attempted to conceal his dereliction by lying to clients about what he had done for them. For example, Samborski told a client that he had initiated a lawsuit and had obtained a judgment when in fact he had never served or filed a complaint on the client's behalf. Samborski gave another client a document to establish that he had served a complaint on opposing parties. In fact, Samborski had not served the opposing parties nor had he filed the complaint. In another matter, Samborski told clients that he would appeal from an adverse judgment. Over three years after the judgment, he told the clients that they had won their appeal when the fact of the matter was that he had not filed an appeal at all.

Samborski's misconduct harmed his clients. For example, default judgments were rendered against some of his clients. Another client's claim was dismissed with prejudice. Yet another client's appeal was dismissed because Samborski failed to file it on time. Samborski repeatedly ignored requests to return client materials. He disregarded clients' repeated attempts to discharge him, failing to withdraw from the representations. He even told one client that she could not fire him.

In addition to misappropriating client funds and neglecting his clients, Samborski failed to cooperate with the disciplinary process. Samborski failed to respond to 12 notices of investigation forwarded to him by the director and failed to timely respond to an additional five. Samborski made false statements to the director in the course of the director's investigation. Samborski failed to appear at the panel hearing and did not answer the three petitions for disciplinary action.

Samborski engaged in criminal conduct. He pleaded guilty to theft in Hennepin County, to giving false information to a police officer in Cass County, and to interference with a 911 call in Carver County. Samborski also faced criminal charges in Hennepin, Crow Wing, Morrison, and Carver Counties. The charges against Samborski included theft, robbery, forgery, felony terroristic threats, and assault.¹ His failure to appear at several hearings led to the issuance of warrants for his arrest.

Finally, Samborski did not pay a court reporter and failed to satisfy a judgment obtained by the court reporter. He also failed to satisfy sanctions imposed on him for discovery abuses.

As we have noted, we deemed the allegations contained in the petitions admitted pursuant to Rule 13(b), RLPR, because Samborski did not answer them. Thus, the only issue before us is the appropriate discipline to impose. In re Geiger, 621 N.W.2d 16, 22 (Minn.2001); In re Stockman, 502 N.W.2d 209, 211 (Minn.1993).

We impose attorney discipline to protect the courts, the legal profession, and the public, to guard the administration of justice, and to deter similar misconduct. In re Terrazas, 581 N.W.2d 841, 845 (Minn.1998); In re Isaacs, 451 N.W.2d 209, 211 (Minn.1990). The purpose of attorney discipline is not to punish the attorney. In re Kaszynski, 620 N.W.2d 708, 713 (Minn.2001); In re Carey, 380 N.W.2d 806, 809 (Minn.1986). To determine the appropriate discipline, we consider: (1) the nature of the misconduct; (2) the cumulative weight of the violations; (3) the...