Jaynes, Matter of, 9450

• Decision Date: 28 June 1978
• Docket Number: No. 9450,9450
• Citation: 267 N.W.2d 782
• Parties: In the Matter of the Disciplinary Action against Jerome L. JAYNES, a Member of the Bar of the State of North Dakota. DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF the SUPREME COURT, Petitioner, v. Jerome L. JAYNES, Respondent. Civ.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Page 782

267 N.W.2d 782

In the Matter of the Disciplinary Action against Jerome L. JAYNES, a Member of the Bar of the State of North Dakota DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF the SUPREME COURT, Petitioner, v. Jerome L. JAYNES, Respondent.

Civ. No. 9450.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

June 28, 1978.

Gregory D. Morris, Bismarck, for petitioner.

Jerome L. Jaynes, Hettinger. (No appearance.)

SAND, Justice.

A grievance complaint was filed on 12 July 1977 against Jerome L. Jaynes alleging that he, in undertaking to probate an estate: (1) charged too much for the small amount of work completed, (2) did not pursue the case with vigor, and (3) did not tell the truth to the clients involved.

Upon receipt of the grievance complaint, initial investigations and inquiry proceedings were instituted in accordance with the Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, from which it was determined that further formal proceedings were appropriate. Thereafter a hearing officer was appointed and a hearing was held on the 22nd day of December, 1977, before Thomas Ewing, hearing officer, but the respondent attorney, Jerome L. Jaynes, made no appearance.

The hearing officer, on 30 January 1978, made findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations, of which copies were transmitted to the Supreme Court on 31 January 1978 for its consideration, and a copy was served upon Jerome L. Jaynes, the respondent, who did not file exceptions within the twenty days as provided for in Rule 10(l ) of the North Dakota Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.

Under these conditions, the court will accept the uncontested findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the hearing officer correct as submitted for final consideration and disposition by this court. See Matter of Maddock, 265 N.W.2d 230 (N.D.1978).

The pertinent findings are:

That Jerome L. Jaynes was admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor at law in this State on or about 16 July 1965 and at the time of the proceedings was an attorney at law on the records of the Supreme Court and practicing in the vicinity of Hettinger, North Dakota.

"X.

"The Respondent, in the course of the private practice of law on or about March of 1976, undertook the representation of Muriel Seamands and the probate of the estate of Lowell Seamands.

"XI.

"In the course of the above-mentioned representation the Respondent charged and collected a fee of $1150.00 (eleven hundred fifty dollars) from Mrs. Seamands and the Lowell Seamands estate.

"XII.

"In the course of that representation, the Respondent neglected to perform his duties as counsel for Mrs. Seamands and the Lowell Seamands estate by unreasonably delaying in the completion of the probate and such conduct constitutes a violation of Canon 6, DR 6-101(A)(3) and Canon 7, DR 7-101(2) [7-101(A)(2)] and EC 7-38 of the Code of Professional Responsibility as adopted by the State Bar Association of North Dakota and approved by the Supreme Court.

"XIII.

"The complainant, Joleen Erickson, found it necessary to hire substitute counsel to handle the estate of Muriel Seamands, deceased.

"XIV.

"The Respondent has failed to refund the unearned compensation he has received, which is in violation of Canon 2, EC 2-32, DR 2-110(A)(3) of the Code of Professional Responsibility as adopted by the State Bar Association of North Dakota and approved by the Supreme Court.

"XV.

"The Respondent has had seven informal complaints filed against him with the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court, which complaints have resulted in three private admonishments.

"XVI.

"The action of the Respondent, the violations of the Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the history of complaints are sufficient grounds for disciplinary action against the Respondent.

"CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

"Upon the foregoing Findings, this hearing officer of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court concludes that the Respondent has violated the Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility by his own admission and that the Respondent has a history of complaints, which together constitute sufficient basis for a public reprimand.

"WHEREFORE, it is the recommendation of this hearing officer that the Respondent be publicly reprimanded and be required to pay the costs of the formal disciplinary proceeding and refund all of the compensation he received...