Lincoln, Matter of, No. SB-89-0067-D
| Court | Supreme Court of Arizona |
| Writing for the Court | CORCORAN; GORDON |
| Citation | 798 P.2d 371,165 Ariz. 233 |
| Parties | In re Kenneth Johnston LINCOLN, a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Respondent. Disc. Comm. |
| Decision Date | 18 September 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. SB-89-0067-D,No. 87-1142 |
Page 371
Kenneth Johnston Lincoln, Scottsdale, pro se.
State Bar of Arizona by Harriet L. Turney, Chief Bar Counsel, Yigael M. Cohen, Staff Bar Counsel, Phoenix.
CORCORAN, Justice.
The Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Arizona (Commission) recommends that Kenneth Johnston Lincoln (respondent) be suspended from the practice of law for 9 months. Because respondent failed to appeal from the Commission's recommendation, this matter was submitted for review on the record. See rule 53(e), Rules of the Arizona Supreme
Page 372
[165 Ariz. 234] Court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Ariz. Const. art. 3.Facts and Procedural Background
On July 29, 1988, the State Bar filed a formal complaint against respondent, charging him with violating the Rules of Professional Conduct, contained in rule 42, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court. In Count I, respondent was charged with abandoning his representation of his clients, Judith and Jerold Bender, who had retained him to defend them in a lawsuit involving a business lease and with refusing to communicate with them, in violation of Ethical Rules 1.3 and 1.4. Count II alleged that respondent had failed to advise the Benders that their deposition had been noticed, in violation of ER 1.4. Count III alleged that respondent had failed to cooperate with the State Bar's disciplinary investigation by failing to file a timely response to the charges in Counts I and II, in violation of ER 8.1(b) and rule 51(h) and (i).
On August 29, 1988, respondent was personally served with the complaint. When he failed to timely answer, the State Bar requested that the hearing committee deem the complaint admitted, pursuant to rule 53(c)(1). On September 30, 1988, the Commission received respondent's letter contending that his clients were "unmitigated liars," alleging they had discharged his services, and detailing various health problems that he and his family were experiencing. The letter was subsequently ruled an untimely answer.
On October 25, 1988, at the time set for the hearing before the committee, respondent appeared and requested that one of the committee members be excused because of a conflict of interest. He also requested a continuance because of ill health. The committee rescheduled the hearing to reconstitute the members of the committee because of the apparent conflict.
After granting several continuances because of health problems in respondent's family, the committee reconvened on February 23, 1989. Respondent did not appear. As a courtesy, the court reporter telephoned him, and respondent advised her he had not opened his mail for more than 4 weeks and had not read the notice of hearing. Although the committee offered respondent a short delay to allow him time to appear, he declined to do so.
Based on the testimony of respondent's client, Judith Bender, and the evidence introduced by bar counsel, the committee issued its report on March 31, 1989. The committee found, by clear and convincing evidence, that respondent had committed the ethical violations alleged in the complaint, and that respondent had previously been suspended from the practice of law as a result of similar complaints against him in 1981. The committee recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for 6 months and one day, 1 and be ordered to pay costs. The committee gave the following reasons for its recommendations:
1. Although respondent may have experienced poor health and personal tragedy during his representation of the complainants, this was not sufficient excuse to prevent him from effectively communicating with his clients and informing them of the status of their lawsuits.
2. The present record contains insufficient justification for respondent's failure to promptly respond to bar counsel's
Page 373
[165 Ariz. 235] and the hearing committee's requests for his cooperation in this matter.3. Respondent's prior discipline history, when reviewed against the background of the present complaint, demonstrates that respondent periodically disregards his professional obligations, the interests of justice and those of his clients.
Respondent did not object to the committee's report. The matter was originally...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shannon, Matter of, No. SB-92-0001-D
...in acting as an arbiter of the law, we give great weight to the recommendations of the Committee and the Commission. In re Lincoln, 165 Ariz. 233, 235-36, 798 P.2d 371, Page 553 [179 Ariz. 57] 373-74 (1990), citing Neville, 147 Ariz. at 115, 708 P.2d at 1306. Yet, this court is ultimately r......
-
Levine, Matter of, No. SB-91-0028-D
...by clear and convincing evidence; and third, we have the ultimate responsibility for imposing the appropriate sanctions. In re Lincoln, 165 Ariz. 233, 235-36, 798 P.2d 371, 373-74 II. History of Litigations The testimony and evidence in this matter, in the words of the committee, "recounted......
-
Wolfram, Matter of, No. SB-91-0040-D
...Bar. In re Rantz, 169 Ariz. 56, 57, 817 P.2d 1, 2 (1991); In re Henry, 168 Ariz. 141, 143, 811 P.2d 1078, 1080 (1991); In re Lincoln, 165 Ariz. 233, 235, 798 P.2d 371, 373 (1990). Nevertheless, we give deference and serious consideration to the reports of the committee and the Commission. I......
-
Piatt, Matter of, No. SB-96-0064-D
...one of those situations. Under the applicable version of Rule 53(e), 1 this court is the ultimate trier of fact and law. In re Lincoln, 165 Ariz. 233, 235, 798 P.2d 371, 373 (1990). We have both final authority and responsibility to decide on the appropriate sanction in every bar discipline......
-
Shannon, Matter of, No. SB-92-0001-D
...in acting as an arbiter of the law, we give great weight to the recommendations of the Committee and the Commission. In re Lincoln, 165 Ariz. 233, 235-36, 798 P.2d 371, Page 553 [179 Ariz. 57] 373-74 (1990), citing Neville, 147 Ariz. at 115, 708 P.2d at 1306. Yet, this court is ultimately r......
-
Levine, Matter of, No. SB-91-0028-D
...by clear and convincing evidence; and third, we have the ultimate responsibility for imposing the appropriate sanctions. In re Lincoln, 165 Ariz. 233, 235-36, 798 P.2d 371, 373-74 II. History of Litigations The testimony and evidence in this matter, in the words of the committee, "recounted......
-
Wolfram, Matter of, No. SB-91-0040-D
...Bar. In re Rantz, 169 Ariz. 56, 57, 817 P.2d 1, 2 (1991); In re Henry, 168 Ariz. 141, 143, 811 P.2d 1078, 1080 (1991); In re Lincoln, 165 Ariz. 233, 235, 798 P.2d 371, 373 (1990). Nevertheless, we give deference and serious consideration to the reports of the committee and the Commission. I......
-
Piatt, Matter of, No. SB-96-0064-D
...one of those situations. Under the applicable version of Rule 53(e), 1 this court is the ultimate trier of fact and law. In re Lincoln, 165 Ariz. 233, 235, 798 P.2d 371, 373 (1990). We have both final authority and responsibility to decide on the appropriate sanction in every bar discipline......