Weber v. Clark Cnty., Case# 2:10-cv-01990-KJD-RJJ
| Decision Date | 02 November 2011 |
| Docket Number | Case# 2:10-cv-01990-KJD-RJJ |
| Parties | KEITH WEBER Plaintiff, v. CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, et al. Defendant(s). |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nevada |
VERIFIED PETITION FOR
PERMISSION TO PRACTICE
IN THIS CASE ONLY BY
ATTORNEY NOT ADMITTED
TO THE BAR OF THIS COURT
AND DESIGNATION OF
LOCAL COUNSEL
EFFECTIVE JUNE 1, 2004
FILING FEE IS $175.00
Chris Harper, Petitioner, respectfully represents to the Court:
1. That Petitioner resides at Edmond (city). Oklahoma County (county) Oklahoma (state)
2. That Petitioner is an attorney at law and a member of the law firm of Chris Harper, Inc. with offices at 2300 W. Danforth Rd., Suite 120 (street address) Edmond, OK (city), 73012-4341 (zip code), (405)359-0600 (area code + telephone number), charper@chrisharperlaw.com (Email address).
Paid Amt $ ___ Date ___
Receipt # ___ Initials ___ 3. That Petitioner has been retained personally or as a member of the law firm by Keith Weber [client(s)] to provide legal representation in connection with the above-entitled case now pending before this Court.
4. That since 10/6/1983 (date) Petitioner has been and presently is a member in good standing of the bar of the highest Court of the State of Oklahoma (state) where Petitioner regularly practices law.
5. That Petitioner was admitted to practice before the following United States District Courts, United States Circuit Courts of Appeal, the Supreme Court of the United States and Courts of other States on the dates indicated for each, and that Petitioner is presently a member in good standing of the bars of said Courts.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
¦Court ¦Date Admitted¦Bar Number ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦
¦Tenth Circuit ¦5/26/1989 ¦10325 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦
¦U.S.D.C. Western District of Oklahoma ¦12/15/1983 ¦10325 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦
¦U.S.D.C. Northern District of Oklahoma¦12/1/1989 ¦10325 ¦
+--------------------------------------+-------------+------------¦
¦U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Oklahoma ¦4/8/1993 ¦10325 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
6. That there are or have been no disciplinary proceedings instituted against Petitioner, nor any suspension of any license, certificate or privilege to appear before any judicial, regulatory or administrative body, or any resignation or termination in order to avoid disciplinary or disbarment proceedings, except as described in detail below:
See attached.
7. Has Petitioner ever been denied admission to the State Bar of Nevada?. (If yes, give particulars of every denied admission): ____________ No.
8. That Petitioner is a member of good standing in the following Bar Associations: ____________ Oklahoma Bar Association
9. Petitioner or any member of Petitioner's firm (or office if firm has offices in more than one city) with which Petitioner is associated has/have filed application(s) to appear as counsel under Local Rule IA 10-2 during the past three (3) years in the following matters:
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦Date of ¦Cause¦Title of Court Administrative ¦Was Application Granted¦
¦Application ¦ ¦Body or Arbitrator ¦or Denied ¦
+-------------+-----+---------------------------------+-----------------------¦
¦None ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
(If necessary, please attach a statement of additional applications)
10. Petitioner consents to the jurisdiction of the courts and disciplinary boards of the State of Nevada with respect to the law of this state governing the conduct of attorneys to the same extent as a member of the State Bar of Nevada.
11. Petitioner agrees to comply with the standards of professional conduct required of the members of the bar of this court.
12. Petitioner has disclosed in writing to the client that the applicant is not admitted to practice in this jurisdiction and that the client has consented to such representation.
That Petitioner respectfully prays that Petitioner be admitted to practice before this Court FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE ONLY.
____________
Petitioner's Signature
STATE OF Oklahoma
Chris Harper Petitioner, being first duly swom, deposes and says: That the foregoing statements are true.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
___ day of ___
Notary public or Clerk of Court
Pursuant to the requirements of the Local Rules of Practice for this Court, the Petitioner believes it to be in the best interests of the client(s) to designate Phillip P. Owens II Attorney at Law, member of the State of Nevada and previously admitted to practice before the above-entitled Court as associate residence counsel in this action. The address of said designated Nevada counsel is:
By this designation the Petitioner and undersigned party(ies) agree that this designation constitutes agreement and authorization for the designated resident admitted counsel to sign stipulations binding on all of us.
The undersigned party(ies) appoints Phillip P.Owens II as his/her/their Designated Resident Nevada Counsel in this case.
____________
(Party signature)
The undersigned hereby consents to senve as associate resident Nevada counsel in this case.
________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel, Oklahoma Bar Association, Complainant
v.
Charles C. Harper, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FOR ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE.¶ 0 Complainant, Oklahoma Bar Association, filed formal complaint against attorney alleging violation of Rule 4,2 of Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct. After hearing, Professional Responsibility Tribunal recommended dismissal of complaint.
RESPONDENT EXONERATED;
APPLICATION FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS DENIED.
Allen J, Welch, Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Attorney for Complainant.
Jack S. Dawson, James A. Scimeca, Miller Dollarhide, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Attorney for Respondent.
¶ 1 Complainant, the Oklahoma Bar Association, alleged one count of misconduct warranting discipline against respondent attorney, Charles C. Harper (Respondent). The complaint alleged that Respondent had violated rub 4.2 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (ORPC), Okla. Stat. tit. 5, ch. 1, app. 3-A (1991) (prohibition against communications with a person known to be represented by an attorney). Respondent has not been disciplined or has not previously been the subject of a grievance. The Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT) found that Respondent had not violated rule 4.2 and recommended dismissal of the complaint.
¶ 2 At the time of the alleged misconduct. Respondent represented Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO). The representation arose out of an automobile accident involving Bobbie Tenequer (Tenequer), GEICO's insured. The allegations are that Respondent violated rule 4.2 of the ORPC by communicating with Tenequer concerning the accident without first getting the consent of Tenequer's attorney even though he knew that she was represented in the matter.
¶ 3 The underlying facts are as follows. On December 23, 1997. Tenequer, John Mcintosh (Tenequer's boyfriend),and their baby were traveling on a rural road near Ponca City. The vehicle in which they were traveling was owned by Tenequer's father and insured through him by GEICO. The pickup struck some cattle which were in the roadway It is unclear whether, at the time of the accident, Tenequer or her boyfriend was driving the pickup, but the police report shows that Tenequer was driving.
¶ 4 Mcintosh and the baby were taken to the hospital in Perry, Oklahoma. The baby was uninjured but supposedly had problems sleeping for some time after the accident. Mcintosh subsequently had knee surgery. He alleged that the knee injury for which he had surgery was caused by the accident. Tenequer allegedly suffered back or neck pain as a result of the accident and was treated by a chiropractor,
¶ 5 On January 13, 1998, attorney Kenny Jean (Jean) wrote two letters to GEICO. In the first fetter, he identifies John Mcintosh and Tenequer as his clients, Jean advised GEICO that he has been retained to represent Mcintosh and Tenequer in their claims for benefits under the medical payment provision of the policy and possibly claims under the uninsured motorist provision of the policy, in the second letter, Jean identifies only Mcintosh as his client on a personal injury claim for negligence against Tenequer, In the second letter, Jean states: "Investigation has determined that these injuries were proximately caused by the negligent acts, or failures to act, of your injured [Tenequer]."
¶ 6 On March 4. 1998, Jean sent GEiCO a demand letter on behalf of the baby, Marxus. Jean claimed $411.$0 on behalf of Marxus for medical bills and $3,000.00 for pain and suffering and offered to settle for $2,500.00. I in the letter, Jean made it clear that he was representing interests adverse to Tenequer's when he stated:
[Y]our insured [Tenequer] is fully responsible for the accident in question, as the driver struck cattle in the roadway. She was obviously driving too fast for conditions, which were darkness, rain and fog and was, therefore, unable to stop her vehicle prior to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial