Lanahan, In re
| Decision Date | 13 February 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 7951,7951 |
| Citation | 389 P.2d 263,95 Ariz. 268 |
| Parties | In the Matter of a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, F. Patrick LANAHAN, Respondent. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
F. Patrick Lanahan, in pro. per.
Sheldon Mitchell, Phoenix, for the State Bar of Ariz.
This is a disbarment proceeding. It is before this Court on findings of fact and recommendations of the Local Administrative Committee and affirmed by the Board of Governors of the State Bar of Arizona. The findings, briefly summarized and the conclusions and recommendations are:
Meador Case
Findings:
John Treadaway retained F. Patrick Lanahan as his attorney. At the time Treadaway engaged the respondent as his counsel Treadaway had filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Maricopa County in which he was the plaintiff. Treadaway's complaint was based upon fraud, and, in addition to pecuniary damages, asked for the rescission of a real estate contract. At that time there had been filed and served upon Treadaway written interrogatories to be answered by him, and in connection therewith the Superior Court had already entered an order on March 17, 1961, compelling such answers to be made, filed and served on or before March 27, 1961.
Upon undertaking the representation of Treadaway, the respondent obtained from defendant's counsel an extension of time within which to answer the interrogatories. The respondent, however, did not properly or timely prepare, file or serve the answers to the interrogatories. A motion to dismiss Treadaway's complaint was subsequently made by the defendant and notice thereof served upon the respondent, said motion being based upon Treadaway's failure to answer the submitted interrogatories. On April 17, 1961, the Superior Court dismissed Treadaway's complaint for failure to comply with the court order of March 17, 1961, requiring answers to the defendant's submitted written interrogatories. At the hearing of said motion the respondent did not appear nor file any documents in court on behalf of his client.
The respondent first learned that the complaint had been dismissed when so informed by Treadaway. Upon learning of the dismissal of Treadaway's complaint, he advised Treadaway that he, the respondent, would immediately file a motion to set aside the dismissal. The respondent thereafter advised Treadaway that a motion to set aside the dismissal of the complaint had been made. Such motion was not then made and no motion was made until August 23, 1961, which was more than thirty days from the entry of the order of dismissal. The motion made by the respondent to set aside the dismissal of Treadaway's complaint was denied and the dismissal with prejudice remained.
Findings:
In March of 1961, Treadaway was sued by one Stephen J. Kloss for $2,100. Respondent was retained to represent Treadaway in the defense of this lawsuit and consented to act as attorney for Treadaway in connection therewith. Respondent entered an appearance in the case by making a motion to dismiss the complaint, which motion was denied. Respondent failed to advise Treadaway of the denial of said motion, and did not withdraw from the case as attorney for Treadaway, or inform Treadaway that he would not take further action in defense of Treadaway. No answer was filed in the action and the time to answer expired. After the time to answer the complaint had expired, the respondent received notice that application for default judgment was being made. Thereafter, default judgment was obtained by the plaintiff Kloss against Treadaway. The respondent did nothing to prevent the plaintiff's As a result of the entry of the judgment against Treadaway execution was had and personal property of Treadaway levied upon. A sheriff's sale was made and a deficiency judgment obtained by Kloss against Treadaway. After the entry of the judgment against Treadaway, the respondent, Treadaway, Kloss and Kloss' attorney met in Kloss' attorney's office and at that time the respondent stated that he would satisfy the judgment that had been taken against his client.
obtaining this default judgment. No appearance was made by the respondent the day the default judgment was heard and entered. After the entry of the default judgment against Treadaway, respondent did not attempt to correct, modify or set aside the judgment.
On September 28, 1962, respondent gave his personal check to Treadaway in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Toledo Bar Ass'n v. DeMars, 83-4
...See In re Kiepura (1980), 75 App.Div.2d 664, 426 N.Y.S.2d 591; In re Wooten (1973), 260 S.C. 12, 193 S.E.2d 808; In re Lanahan (1964), 95 Ariz. 268, 389 P.2d 263. Finally, in favor of his proposal, respondent cites Stark County Bar Assn. v. Weber (1963), 175 Ohio St. 13, 190 N.E.2d 918 . We......
-
Lanahan, Application of
...The acts and omissions which required that we take such action were occasioned by Mr. Lanahan's addiction to alcohol. In Re Lanahan, 95 Ariz. 268, 389 P.2d 263. On November 1, 1966 Mr. Lanahan applied to this court and the Board of Governors of the State Bar of Arizona for reinstatement as ......
- State v. Schroeder, 1284
-
Treadaway v. Meador
...favor of the Meadors and against the Treadaways. F. Patrick Lanahan was subsequently disbarred by order of this Court. See In re Lanahan, 95 Ariz. 268, 389 P.2d 263. The grounds for disbarment were, in part, his misconduct as attorney for the Treadaways in this cause. In the disbarment proc......