Lawyer Regulation - Lawyers

LAWYER
REGULATION
REINSTATED ATTORNEY
CRAIG J. SIMON
Bar No. 018920; File No. 08-0051
Supreme Court No. SB-09-0021-D
By Arizona Supreme Court judgment and order
dated July 20, 2009, Craig J. Simon, 2141 E.
Broadway, Ste. 120, Tempe, AZ, was reinstated
as a member of the State Bar.
SANCTIONED ATTORNEYS
RICARDO A. BRACAMONTE
Bar No. 014303; File No. 08-1300
Supreme Court No. SB-09-0087-D
By Arizona Supreme Court judgment and order
dated Sept. 22, 2009, Ricardo A. Bracamonte,
197 E. Fort Lowell Rd., Tucson, AZ, was suspended
for 30 days. He was placed on probation
for two years and required to participate in the
State Bar’s Member Assistance Program. He
also was assessed the costs and expenses of the
disciplinary proceedings.
Mr. Bracamonte represented a client in a
IOLTA
TRUST
ACCOUNT
ANSWERS
AVAILABLE
The answers to the Who, What,
When, Where and Why questions
concerning your Interest on
Lawyers Trust Account (IOLTA)
are just a phone call away.
If you call the Trust Account
Hotline at (602) 340-7305,
Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., a State Bar of
Arizona Trust Account Examiner
will provide you with this
information at no cost.
The Examiner will not give
legal advice but will answer your
questions so that you are in compliance
with Rule 42, ER 1.15(a),
Rule 43, and Rule 44
ARIZ.R.S.CT.
child custody matter. The hearing was set for
one hour but the judge’s calendar cleared and
Mr. Bracamonte was asked if he was prepared to
go forward with a three-hour hearing. Mr.
Bracamonte answered “no,” stating that he had
another hearing scheduled in Juvenile Court at
the conclusion of the proceedings. The hearing
was then scheduled to resume approximately
three weeks thereafter. The judge checked the
court calendar and discovered that Mr.
Bracamonte was not scheduled to appear in
Juvenile Court that day. Consequently, she
scheduled an order to show cause hearing in
order for Mr. Bracamonte to explain his apparent
dishonesty to the court. Mr. Bracamonte
self-reported to the State Bar after receiving
notice of the hearing. Mr. Bracamonte admitted
that he knew his statement was false at the time
he made it. Mr. Bracamonte further explained
that personal and emotional problems were the
primary cause of his dishonesty to the court and
he apologized profusely. Mr. Bracamonte was
held in contempt and sanctioned $1,000.
Four aggravating factors were found: prior
disciplinary offenses, dishonest or selfish motive,
vulnerability of victim and substantial experience
in the practice of law.
Five mitigating factors were found: personal
or emotional problems, timely good-faith effort
to make restitution or to rectify consequences of
misconduct, full and free disclosure to disciplinary
board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings,
imposition of other penalties or sanctions
and remorse.
Mr. Bracamonte violated Rule 42,
ARIZ.R.S.CT., ERs 3.3(a)(1), 4.1(a) and 8.4(a),
(c) and (d), and Rule 41(c), (e) and (g),
ARIZ.R.S.CT.
JOSEPH W. CHARLES
Bar No. 003038; File Nos. 07-0302, 07-1663, 08-
0478
Supreme Court No. SB-09-0100-D
By Arizona Supreme Court judgment and order
dated Oct. 15, 2009, Joseph W. Charles, 5704
W. Palmaire, Glendale, AZ, was censured. He
was placed on probation for two years and must
participate in the State Bar’s Law Office
Management Assistance Program. He also was
assessed the costs and expenses of the disciplinary
proceedings.
In count one, Mr. Charles was hired to represent
a client in a child custody matter. At the
conclusion of the proceedings, Mr. Charles filed
a Motion for Contribution of Attorney’s Fees on
behalf of his client. Mr. Charles misrepresented
to the court the findings regarding his client’s
income when the motion was filed. Mr. Charles
also failed to respond to a demand by the State
Bar for information and failed to furnish information.
In count two, Mr. Charles was hired to represent
a client in a probate matter. Mr. Charles
failed to keep his client informed regarding the
status of the matter and failed to act with reasonable
promptness in probating the estate. Mr.
Charles also failed to timely respond to the State
Bar’s request for information.
In count three, Mr. Charles represented a
client in a dissolution and placed a lien on the
marital residence for his attorney fees. The court
ordered each party to pay their own attorney’s
fees after the marital residence had been sold and
the net proceeds divided. Mr. Charles violated
the court order when his fees were paid first pursuant
to the lien rather than after the division of
the proceeds. Mr. Charles also failed to timely
respond to the State Bar’s request for information.
Four aggravating factors were found: prior
disciplinary offenses, pattern of misconduct,
multiple offenses and substantial experience in
the practice of law.
Two mitigating factors were found: character
or reputation and remoteness of prior discipline.
Mr. Charles violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT.,
ERs 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 3.4(c), 8.1(b) and 8.4(c) and
(d), and Rule 53(f), ARIZ.R.S.CT.
DONALD W. HUDSPETH
Bar No. 012198; File No. 08-0342
Supreme Court No. SB-09-0090-D
By Arizona Supreme Court judgment and order
dated Sept. 23, 2009, Donald W. Hudspeth,
3030 N. Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ, was suspended
for 30 days. He was placed on probation
for one year and must participate in the
State Bar’s Law Office Management Assistance
Program. He also was assessed the costs and
expenses of the disciplinary proceedings.
Mr. Hudspeth completed the State Bar’s
Trust Accounting Ethics Enhancement
Program on May 1, 2007. About nine months
later, the State Bar received two insufficient
funds notices regarding Mr. Hudspeth’s trust
account. A review of the trust account revealed
that Mr. Hudspeth failed to maintain and preserve
required records, failed to safekeep client
property, failed to deposit unearned funds or
funds belonging in part to his clients, failed to
deposit personal funds sufficient to pay bank
administrative fees, converted client funds and
commingled personal funds with client funds,
failed to perform monthly three-way reconciliations,
failed to properly supervise employees
assisting in the management of the trust
account, failed to have adequate internal controls
and failed to record all transactions
promptly and completely.
Two aggravating factors were found: multiple
offenses and substantial experience in the
practice of law.
Five mitigating factors were found: absence
of a prior disciplinary record, absence of a dishonest
or selfish motive, timely good-faith
effort to make restitution or to rectify consequences
of misconduct, full and free disclosure
to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude
toward proceedings and remorse.
Mr. Hudspeth violated Rule 42,

ARIZ.R.S.CT., ER 1.15(a) and (b), and Rules
43(a) and (d) and 44(a) and (b), ARIZ.R.S.CT.
JASON J. KELLER
Bar No. 022205; File No. 08-1962
Supreme Court No. SB-09-0106-D
By Arizona Supreme Court judgment and order
dated Oct. 20, 2009, Jason J. Keller, 1331 E.
Northshore Dr., Tempe, AZ, was disbarred by
consent.
Mr. Keller pled guilty to conspiracy to promote
prison contraband and promoting prison
contraband, both class 2 felonies.
Mr. Keller violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT.,
ERs 1.7(a)(2), and 8.4(b), (c) and (d), and
Rules 41(b) and (g) and 53(h) and (j),
ARIZ.R.S.CT.
JAMES M. LAGANKE
Bar No. 006913; File Nos. 07-2049, 08-0024, 08-
0180, 08-0396
Supreme Court No. SB-09-0081-D
By Arizona Supreme Court judgment and order
dated Aug. 24, 2009, James M. LaGanke, 13236
N. Seventh St., Phoenix, AZ, was censured. He
was placed on probation for one year and is
required to participate in the State Bar’s Law
Office Management Assistance Program. He
shall pay restitution and was assessed the costs
and expenses of the disciplinary proceedings.
Mr. LaGanke represented clients in four
separate matters. In each, he failed to confirm
the basis or rate of the legal fee in writing and
failed to adequately supervise his non-lawyer
assistant. In two of the matters, the failure to
supervise resulted in the misappropriation of
fees by Mr. LaGanke’s legal assistant. In one of
the matters, the failure to supervise resulted in
Mr. LaGanke’s mail being diverted by his legal
assistant and, consequently, the due dates for
pleadings were not calendared. In another matter,
Mr. LaGanke’s failure to supervise resulted
in the client’s inability to effectively communicate
with his office. Finally, in one of the matters,
Mr. LaGanke failed to diligently represent
the client by failing to timely respond to a
motion for summary judgment, which resulted
in an adverse judgment against his client.
Three aggravating factors were found: pattern
of misconduct, multiple offenses and substantial
experience in the practice of law.
Three mitigating factors were found:
absence of a prior disciplinary record, absence
of a dishonest or selfish motive and full and free
disclosure to the disciplinary board or cooperative
attitude toward proceedings.
Mr. LaGanke violated Rule 42,
ARIZ.R.S.CT., ERs 1.3, 1.5 and 5.3.
TROY L. MESSER
Bar No. 020581; File No. 08-1521
Supreme Court No. SB-09-0067-D
By Arizona Supreme Court judgment and
order dated Sept. 16, 2009, Troy L. Messer,
3256 S. Golconda Rd., Golden Valley, AZ, was
censured. He was placed on probation for two
years and must participate in the State Bar’s
Law Office Management Assistance Program
and Member Assistance Program if he returns
to practicing law in Arizona within the term of
probation. He also was assessed the costs and
expenses of the disciplinary proceedings.
Mr. Messer was hired to represent a client in
a criminal matter. During the representation,
Mr. Messer began a consensual intimate relationship
with his client. Mr. Messer failed to terminate
the representation or advise his client on
the potential and actual ethical conflict of interest
that existed.
One aggravating factor was found: dishonest
or selfish motive.
Three mitigating factors were found:
absence of a prior disciplinary record, personal
or emotional problems and full and free disclosure
to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude
toward proceedings.
Mr. Messer violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT.,
ERs 1.7(a)(2) and 1.8(j).
BRUCE A. PELKEY
Bar No. 007210; File No. 09-4000
Supreme Court No. SB-09-0083-D
By Arizona Supreme Court judgment and order
dated Sept. 23, 2009, Bruce A. Pelkey, P.O.
Box 812, Bakersfield, CA, was disbarred. He
also was assessed the costs and expenses of the
disciplinary proceedings.
Mr. Pelkey was disbarred by way of reciprocal
discipline from the District of Columbia
Court of Appeals. Mr. Pelkey committed theft
by defrauding his client of her interest in companies
and the profits derived from those interests.
In addition, Mr. Pelkey abused the legal
system to further thwart his client’s efforts to
recoup her losses.
Mr. Pelkey violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT.,
ERs 3.1, 3.2(a), 3.3(a)(1), 4.4, and 8.4(b), (c)
and (d).
DONNA PLATT
Bar No. 012317; File No. 07-2107
Supreme Court No. SB-09-0097-D
By Arizona Supreme Court judgment and order
dated Sept. 30, 2009, Donna Platt, 3219 E.
Camelback Rd., Phoenix, AZ, was censured.
She was placed on probation for two years and
must participate in the State Bar’s Law Office
Management Assistance Program. She shall pay
restitution and also was assessed the costs and
expenses of the disciplinary proceedings.
Ms. Platt represented clients in a wrongful
death matter. At the termination of representation,
Ms. Platt failed to timely return the client
file and did so only after a court order was
issued. Ms. Platt also failed to return personal
property to her clients.
Two aggravating factors were found: refusal
to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct
and substantial experience in the practice of law.
One mitigating factor was found: absence of
a prior disciplinary record.
Ms. Platt violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT.,
ERs 1.15(a), 1.16(d) and 8.4(d).
STEPHEN J. RENARD
Bar No. 021991; File No. 07-1867
Supreme Court No. SB-09-0101-D
By Arizona Supreme Court judgment and order
dated Oct. 15, 2009, Stephen J. Renard, 868
Cove Parkway, Cottonwood, AZ, was censured.
He was placed on probation for one year and
must participate in the State Bar’s Law Office
Management Assistance Program. He also was
assessed the costs and expenses of the disciplinary
proceedings.
Mr. Renard represented a client in a personal
injury matter on a contingency fee basis but
failed to obtain a signed fee agreement. Mr.
Renard filed a complaint on his client’s behalf
but failed to serve the defendant. The complaint
was dismissed due to lack of service. Mr. Renard
refiled the complaint but again failed to serve
the defendant and it was dismissed a second
time. Consequently, his client’s claim was
barred by the statute of limitations.
Two aggravating factors were found: pattern
of misconduct and multiple offenses.
Two mitigating factors were found: absence
of a dishonest or selfish motive and full and free
disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative
attitude toward proceedings.
Mr. Renard violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT.,
ERs 1.1, 1.3 and 1.5(c).
CRAIG J. SIMON
Bar No. 018920; File No. 08-0051
Supreme Court No. SB-09-0021-D
By Arizona Supreme Court judgment and order
dated April 20, 2009, Craig J. Simon, 2141 E.
Broadway, Ste. 120, Tempe, AZ, was suspended
for 60 days. He was placed on probation for one
year and required to participate in the State
Bar’s Member Assistance Program. He also was
assessed the costs and expenses of the disciplinary
proceedings. Mr. Simon was reinstated as a
member of the State Bar pursuant to judgment
and order dated July 20, 2009.
Mr. Simon engaged in a potential conflict of
interest when he had an affair with his client
while representing her in a civil matter.
There were no aggravating factors.
Three mitigating factors were found:
absence of a prior disciplinary record, full and
fee disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative
attitude toward proceedings and character
or reputation.
Mr. Simon violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT.,
ER 1.7.
CAUTION! Nearly 16,000 attorneys are
eligible to practice law in Arizona. Many
attorneys share the same names. All discipline
reports should be read carefully for names,
addresses and Bar numbers.