March 1999 Volune 12 No3 - Utah State Bar

Several months afer fing the lien, the attorney claimed that the
client owed legal fees. At approximately the same time, the
client began seekig the advice of attorneys regarding fig a
bankrptcy. Included in the debts that could have been dis-
charged at that time were the attorney's fees. The attorney
became concerned that the client might attempt to discharge
the legal fees in bankrptcy and prepared and had the client
sign a quitclaim deed assigning a portion of the client's interest
in the marita home to the attorney. In exchange the attorney
agreed to cap the fees, in addition to the fees the attorney had
already peen paid by the client or her former husband.
The attorney did not fully disclose and transmit in writing to the
client, in a manner which could be reasonably understood by
the client, the fact that the attorney had acquired an ownership
and security interest in the marital home adverse to the client.
The attorney did not give the client a reasonable opportunity to
seek the advice of independent counsel regarding the attorney's
acquisition of an ownership interest in the martial home
adverse to the client. The client did not consent in writing to the
attorneys acquiring an ownership interest in the marita home
adverse to the client's interest.
Ultimately, the attorney fied a lien on the marital home. There-
afer, a Fourth District Court Judge ordered the attorney to
reconvey the interest obtained from the client in the marital
home. The attorney reconveyed the interest to the client, and
sent the title company a "Payoff StatementJnformation" giving
notice to the title company of the quitclaim back to the client,
and notice that the attorney's payoff amount on the attorney's
lien was owig.
On June 25, 1998 a Screening Panel of the Ethics and Discipline
Committee heard the matter and determined that an admonition
was appropriate discipline for a violation of Rule 1.8.
ADMONITION
On December 31, 1998, an attorney was admonished by the
Chair of the Ethics and Disciplie Committee of the Utah State
Barfor violation of Rule 1.5(a) (Safekeeping Property) of the
Rules of Professional Conduct. The disciplie was based on a
stipulation between the attorney and the Offce of Professional
Conduct ("OPC").
On May 22, 1998, the OPC received notice that the attorney's
trust account was overdrawn. Through investigation the OPC
determined, and the attorney concurred, that the Nonsuffcient
Fuds Notice was the result of the attorney's disbursement of a
client's portion of a settlement in a collection matter prior to the
bank's posting of the check. The attorney deposited that settle-
ment check the same day he issued the check to the client.
The attorney had received two letters of caution for this viola-
tion in two prior instances.
ADMONITION
On January 5, 1999, an attorney was admonished by the Chair
of the Ethics and Discipline Commttee of the Utah State Bar for
violation of Rules 1.5 (Safekeeping Property) and 8.4(a)
(Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The attor-
ney was also ordered to attend the Utah State Bar Ethics SchooL.
The discipline was based on a stipulation between the attorney
and the Offce of Professional Conduct.
On August 19, 1998, the Utah State Bar received notice that the
attorney's trust account was overdrawn. The attorney admitted
that he wrote a check on his trust account on behal of a client
when he knew there were not funds in the account that
belonged to the client. The attorney attempted to transfer funds
from his operating account into his trust account whie awaiting
reimbursement from the client, but mistakenly deposited the
funds into the wrong account, which created the overdraf in the
attorney's trust account.
ADMONITION
On January 8, 1999, an attorney was admonished by the Chair
of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah State Bar for
violation of Rule 1.8(a) (Confct ofInterest: Prohibited Trans-
actions) ofthe Rules of Professional Conduct. The attorney was
also ordered to attend the Uta State Bar Ethics SchooL. The
admonition was based on a stipulation between the attorney and
the Offce of Professional Conduct.
The attorney entered into a business transaction with a client
and knowingly acquired an ownership, possessory, security or
other pecuniary interest adverse to the client without undertak-
ing the safeguards identifed in Rule 1.8 (a) , Rules of
Professional Conduct.
~ta~ ~ar
19