Case Title: MATTER OF MacASKILL

Citation: 163 Ariz. 354, 788 P.2d 87

Docket Number: SB-89-0049-D

State: arizona

Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Date: 1990-02-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
163 Ariz. 354 (1990) 788 P.2d 87 In the Matter of a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, John C. MacASKILL, Respondent. No. SB-89-0049-D. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. February 15, 1990. John Colin MacAskill, Phoenix, pro se. *355 State Bar of Arizona by Harriet L. Turney, Chief Counsel, and Yigael M. Cohen, Phoenix, for State Bar. CAMERON, Justice. I. JURISDICTION The Arizona State Bar Disciplinary Commission (Commission) recommends that John Colin MacAskill be disbarred from the practice of law, ordered to pay restitution to his former clients and ordered to pay costs to the State Bar of Arizona (Bar) in the amount of $1549.40. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 17A A.R.S. Sup.Ct.Rules, Rule 53(e). II. FACTS In the fall of 1987, numerous complaints were filed against respondent John Colin MacAskill. The Bar wrote a series of letters to respondent concerning the complaints but he failed to answer the letters. On 19 November 1987, the Bar notified respondent as follows: Respondent failed to answer and his deposition was taken on 24 November 1987. The Bar conducted further investigations and on 29 July 1988, filed an amended complaint containing eleven counts. Again, respondent did not reply. On 21 September 1988, the Bar notified respondent that he had failed to answer as required pursuant to Rule 53(c)(1), Rules of the Supreme Court, which provide that "in the event respondent fails to answer within the proscribed time, the complaint shall be deemed admitted." On 10 November 1988, the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar of Arizona (Committee) conducted hearings in this matter. Respondent, indicating by telephone that he had the flu, asked for a continuance of the hearing. After some discussion, it was agreed that he could hear the testimony of the witnesses by speaker phone and ask questions if he wished. Respondent took advantage of this and listened to the proceedings. At the hearing, three clients testified concerning respondent's misconduct. At the conclusion of the hearing, respondent asked that the hearing be recessed to a time when he could be heard in person. A hearing was held for that purpose on 1 December 1988. Respondent appeared, answered the questions of the Committee members and bar counsel, and made the following statement to the Committee: The Committee found respondent in violation of ten counts of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 42, Rules of the Supreme Court, and recommended disbarment. The Commission adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Committee. The Commission also recommends disbarment. After the recommendations were filed in this court, the clerk of this court mailed notices to respondent's listed office. The letter was returned marked "moved left no forwarding address." Respondent has filed no pleadings or otherwise appeared in this court. III. DISCUSSION The Committee considered eleven counts of misconduct. We will discuss each count separately and the applicability of the Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as other rules of the Supreme Court. COUNT ONE Lucretia Marsh, respondent's client, testified before the Committee: Respondent's failure to finish the paperwork for his client demonstrates a lack of diligence in violation of ER 1.3 (Diligence). Further, his failure to contact Ms. Marsh or send her the file is a violation of ER 1.4(a) (Communication). COUNT TWO In November 1987, respondent testified by deposition. At that deposition, the following transpired: Over a year later, he testified before the Committee and was examined by the Chairman of the Committee as follows: This testimony makes clear that respondent, though suspended for failure to pay bar dues, continued to practice law for more than a year. Accordingly, respondent is guilty of practicing law without a license in violation of ER 5.5 (Unauthorized Practice of Law). See In re Phelps, 154 Ariz. 516, 744 P.2d 428 (1987). COUNT THREE At the 10 November hearing, Eric Allen testified as follows: Mr. Allen also testified that he had sued respondent in the Tolleson Justice Court. The court allowed respondent $250 for legal services and gave Mr. Allen a judgment for $437. We believe respondent violated ER 1.3 (Diligence) and ER 8.4(c) (Misconduct). COUNT FOUR The file before this court contains copies of the letters sent to respondent. There is, however, nothing in the file by way of response from respondent. Respondent does not contest this fact. We believe respondent failed to cooperate with the Bar's investigation in violation of Rule 51(h) (Failure to Furnish Information) and (i) (Failure to Cooperate), Rules of the Supreme Court. COUNT FIVE Respondent admitted that he had taken eleven months to serve Temple's wife in the dissolution matter and that he failed to respond to his client's request for information. We believe that respondent violated ER 1.3 (Diligence), and ER 1.4(a) (Communication). The Committee also found that respondent violated ER 1.15 (Safekeeping Property), because respondent failed to return the unused portion of his client's retainer. This matter, however, is contested. Respondent stated before the Committee: The file before this court does not contain evidence to rebut respondent's testimony. The Bar has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that respondent violated ER 1.15. See In re Neville, 147 Ariz. 106, 108, 708 P.2d 1297, 1299 (1985). COUNT SIX Again, the file before this court shows that three letters were sent to respondent, which he failed to answer. At his deposition, he did not deny this. We believe respondent violated Rule 51(h) (Failure to Furnish Information) and (i) (Failure to Cooperate), and ER 8.1(b) (Failure to Disclose). COUNT SEVEN Additionally, we note that respondent delayed in acting on Rita King's case. For example, when the lawsuit was actually filed and the process server tried to serve the defendant, the defendant was not at an address where he could be found. At the hearing, Ms. King testified: We believe respondent violated ER 1.3 (Diligence), and ER 1.4(a) (Communication). COUNT EIGHT Once again, the record shows that the Bar sent a number of letters to respondent which he failed to answer or deny. We *360 find respondent violated ER 8.1(b) (Failure to Respond), and Rule 51(h) (Failure to Furnish Information) and (i) (Refusal to Cooperate). COUNT NINE This count contained an allegation of two prior ethical violations for which respondent was disciplined. This is not disputed and may be considered an aggravating circumstance for purposes of imposing discipline. COUNT TEN In discussing this charge, respondent testified before the Committee: We find that respondent violated ER 1.3 (Diligence), ER 1.4(a) (Communication), and ER 5.5 (Unauthorized Practice of Law). COUNT ELEVEN Again, the record is clear that respondent failed to cooperate with the Bar in its investigation into the charges brought against him by Allen and Shelby Hunt, all in violation of ER 8.1(b) (Failure to Disclose). IV. SANCTIONS The Committee recommended, and the Commission agreed, that respondent be disbarred. The Commission also recommended that respondent be ordered to pay restitution to some of the victims. Respondent filed no pleadings in this court opposing this proceeding and did not otherwise appear. The purpose of attorney discipline is to protect the public, the profession, and the administration of justice, as well as to deter other lawyers' improper conduct. In re Blankenburg, 143 Ariz. 365, 367, 694 P.2d 195, 197 (1984). In determining the appropriate discipline, we are guided by the American Bar Association's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1986). In re Fresquez, 162 Ariz. 328, 783 P.2d 774 (1989). Additionally, the following four factors are useful in determining appropriate discipline: 1) the duty violated; 2) the lawyer's mental state; 3) the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct; and 4) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors. ABA Standards, Standard 3.0. The respondent's misconduct involved four violations of ER 1.3 (Diligence), three violations each of ER 1.4(a) (Communication) and ER 8.1(b) (Failure to Disclose), two violations of ER 5.5 (Unauthorized Practice of Law), 51(h) (Failure to Furnish Information) and Rule 51(i) (Refusal to Cooperate) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, and one violation each of ER 8.4(c) (Misconduct; Involving Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit or Misrepresentation) and ER 1.15 (Safekeeping Property). Disbarment is generally appropriate where: ABA Standards, Standard 4.41. The commentary to Standard 4.41 states: Id. Respondent engaged in numerous acts of misconduct that centered on his lack of diligence in handling several client's matters to the injury of those clients. Respondent's pattern of misconduct in his dealings with several clients, his constant failure to comply with the Rules of the Supreme Court, the vulnerability of his clients who suffered financial losses, and a prior disciplinary record, all indicate that disbarment is the proper sanction in this case. V. DISPOSITION Respondent is ordered to pay restitution as follows: $337 to Mr. Allen (the victim in Count Three), $1,250 to Mr. and Mrs. Hunt (the victims in Count Ten) and Bar costs in the amount of $1,549.40. Respondent disbarred. GORDON, C.J., FELDMAN, V.C.J., and MOELLER and CORCORAN, JJ., concur.