State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Jones, No. S-04-619
| Decision Date | 07 October 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. S-04-963, No. S-04-1461., No. S-04-619 |
| Parties | STATE of Nebraska ex rel. COUNSEL FOR DISCIPLINE of the Nebraska Supreme Court, relator, v. William P. JONES, respondent. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Kent L. Frobish, Assistant Counsel for Discipline, for relator.
William P. Jones, pro se.
The office of the Counsel for Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme Court, relator, filed formal charges against respondent, William P. Jones. Respondent failed to answer, and on June 16, 2004, this court suspended respondent from the practice of law. We now consider relator's motion for judgment on the pleadings and the appropriate discipline to be imposed upon respondent.
Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the State of Nebraska on September 18, 1989. In previous disciplinary proceedings, respondent received a private reprimand on November 22, 1999, for neglecting a client's case and a second private reprimand on June 24, 2003, for aiding the unauthorized practice of law.
On January 14, 2004, a bank notified relator that respondent's trust account was overdrawn by $168.31. Relator sent a letter of inquiry, but respondent failed to provide a written explanation for the overdrawn trust account. When respondent did not answer a second request, relator filed a grievance. Respondent received notice of the grievance on March 12 instructing him to respond, but he did not do so.
On January 14, 2004, relator also received a grievance letter from Rickey Bringus alleging that respondent failed to timely file a brief in Bringus' case before the Nebraska Court of Appeals. Relator sent respondent a copy of the grievance letter and instructed respondent to file a written response. A second letter was sent, but respondent still did not reply. Relator filed another grievance and sent notice to respondent, directing him to file a written response within 15 days. Respondent did not answer. Relator arranged to take a deposition of respondent on April 27, 2004, and served a subpoena duces tecum on him. Respondent said he would send the requested trust account documents prior to the deposition. Respondent also stated that he was under a psychiatrist's care for depression and attention deficit and that he would send a letter from his doctor. Respondent sent neither the trust account documents nor the doctor's letter. Respondent failed to attend the scheduled deposition, allegedly because his truck would not make it from Omaha to Lincoln. Relator told respondent to send the requested documents by courier, but respondent failed to do so.
On May 19, 2004, the chairperson of the Committee on Inquiry of the Second Disciplinary District filed an application asking this court to temporarily suspend respondent from the practice of law. We issued an order on May 26, instructing respondent to show cause within 7 days why this court should not temporarily suspend his license to practice law in Nebraska. Respondent did not answer the order to show cause, and on June 16, we suspended his license and ordered him to comply with Neb. Ct. R. of Discipline 16 (rev.2004) (suspended or disbarred attorney must notify clients, refund client funds and close trust accounts, and return membership card to Nebraska State Bar Association).
Because respondent failed to notify his clients of his suspension, this court appointed a trustee on September 15, 2004, to take inventory of respondent's files, to sequester client funds, and to take other actions necessary to protect the interests of respondent's clients. The trustee fielded requests from respondent's clients in search of their files, and the trustee notified respondent of these requests. It is unclear from the record whether respondent failed to reply to all his clients' inquiries, but the trustee reported that in one case, after he sent respondent a letter to inform respondent that a former client sought her file, that client again called the trustee and indicated that respondent had not contacted her at all.
The trustee reported that respondent's files were in "hapless shape," which made it difficult for the trustee to "tell whether they were open, closed, or whatever." The trustee provided an inventory of respondent's cases to this court "to the extent they exist[ed]." Respondent kept the files in various boxes "with no visibly co-herent organization."
During the existence of the trusteeship, the trustee noted that respondent would promise to take action (e.g., deliver file materials to the trustee) but then fail to follow through. In the trustee's final report, the trustee noted that respondent had assured the trustee he had no trust account funds in hand and that "[f]inally, he appears to be cooperative." On the other hand, the trustee also noted tasks respondent still had not completed.
Respondent represented Bringus at a postconviction hearing in Lancaster County District Court in December 2002. Following the hearing, the court gave respondent 7 days to submit a written argument. After respondent failed to do so, Bringus' motion for postconviction relief was denied. Respondent continued to represent Bringus on appeal to the Court of Appeals. After the court had granted an extended brief date, respondent failed to file a brief on behalf of Bringus. Thus, Bringus was forced to file a brief pro se in February 2004 to preserve his appeal.
In Bringus' case before the Court of Appeals, respondent checked out the bill of exceptions and transcript but failed to timely return them despite repeated requests from the Attorney General's office and the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. A court order was served on respondent before he finally returned the documents to the clerk.
Respondent also represented Bringus in a Social Security matter in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska. On August 1, 2003, the district court sent respondent notice that the case would be dismissed in 10 days for failure to prosecute unless respondent showed cause why the case should not be dismissed. Respondent failed to reply to the court's order, so Bringus' Social Security case was dismissed.
As to count I, relator alleges that respondent violated his oath of office as an attorney, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 7-104 (Reissue 1997), and the following provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility: Canon 1, DR 1-102(A)(1) (), DR 1-102(A)(5) (), and DR 1-102(A)(6) (), and Canon 6, DR 6-101(A)(3) ().
Respondent's trust account was overdrawn on January 6, 2004, by $40.31 and on January 8 by $168.31. Respondent failed to answer relator's initial inquiry. Relator filed a grievance, and respondent again failed to provide explanation for the overdrawn trust account.
As to count II, relator alleges that respondent violated his oath of office as an attorney; DR 1-102(A)(1); and Canon 9, DR 9-102(A) ().
Respondent failed to reply to any of relator's inquiries or the grievances regarding his representation of Bringus and the overdrawn trust account. Despite being served with a subpoena duces tecum, respondent failed to attend a deposition and did not send relator the documents which had been requested.
As to count III, relator charges respondent with violating his oath of office as an attorney; the disciplinary rules; and DR 1-102(A)(1), (5), and (6).
On August 24, 2004, Raymond Baker filed a grievance with relator. Baker claimed that respondent held funds belonging to him, that respondent had failed to respond to Baker's repeated attempts to contact respondent, that respondent did not return Baker's files and records, and that respondent failed to notify Baker that respondent's law license had been suspended in June 2004. Relator mailed a copy of Baker's grievance letter to respondent, but respondent failed to provide a written response.
As to count I, relator charges respondent with violating his oath of office as an attorney; Neb. Ct. R. of Discipline 9(E) (rev.2001) (attorney must respond to grievance within 15 working days); disciplinary rule 16; DR 1-102(A)(1), (5), and (6); DR 6-101(A)(3); and DR 9-102(A) and (B) (prompt notification of receipt of client funds, safekeeping of client property, maintenance of complete records of client property in attorney's possession, prompt delivery of funds or other property to client upon request).
Debbie Sue Hecker filed a grievance against respondent on September 1, 2004. Hecker alleged that respondent neglected her case, failed to respond to repeated attempts by Hecker to talk to respondent, failed to return her files and records, and failed to notify her that his law license had been suspended in June 2004. Relator mailed a copy of Hecker's grievance letter to respondent with instructions for respondent to reply. Respondent did not do so.
As to count II, relator charges that respondent violated his oath of office as an attorney; disciplinary rules 9(E) and 16; DR 1-102(A)(1), (5), and (6); DR 6-101(A)(3); and DR 9-102(B)(4) ().
Respondent represented Charles Evans in a suit in federal court. After losing the case in the district court, respondent filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Counsel for Discipline of Neb. Supreme Court v. Crawford
...for Dis. v. Fellman, supra note 1. 47. Brief for respondent at 18. 48. Neb. Ct. R. § 3–303(A). 49. See State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Jones, 270 Neb. 471, 704 N.W.2d 216 (2005). 50. See State ex rel. NSBA v. Veith, 238 Neb. 239, 470 N.W.2d 549 (1991). 51.State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v.......
-
State ex rel. Counsel for Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme Court v. Ellis
...(2011), including disbarment. See Switzer, supra. We believe that Ellis' acts caused his client harm, see State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Jones, 270 Neb. 471, 704 N.W.2d 216 (2005), to the extent it denied Fuller the ability to pursue his claim. By fabricating the March 28, 2008, letter, ......
-
State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Beach
...beginning." STANDARD OF REVIEW A proceeding to discipline an attorney is a trial de novo on the record. State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Jones, 270 Neb. 471, 704 N.W.2d 216 (2005); State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Chapin, 270 Neb. 56, 699 N.W.2d 359 (2005). However, because neither party ......
-
State ex rel. Counsel v. Petersen, S-06-182.
...in its discretion, dispose of the matter on its own motion or on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Jones, 270 Neb. 471, 704 N.W.2d 216 (2005). Petersen filed an answer in which he admitted the allegations in the formal charges, and relator filed an in......