1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pamela D. Bucy ChiefDisciplinary Counsel P.O. Box 1099 Helena, Montana 59624 Tel: (406)442-1648 pbucy@montanaodc.or,

a. Office ofDisciplinary Counsel

BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON PRACTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA * * * * * * * * * * * * * IN THE MATTEROF MICHAEL D. MONTGOMERY, An Attorney at Law, Respondent. Supreme Court Cause No. ODC File No. 23-162 COMPLAINT Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(b), 1.15, 1.16, and 1.18, MRPC By leave ofthe Commission on Practice granted on July 17, 2024, the Office ofDisciplinary Counsel forthe State ofMontana ("ODC"), hereby charges Michael Montgomery withprofessional misconduct as follows: General Allegations 1. Michael Montgomery, hereinafter referred to as Respondent, was admitted to the practice of law in the State of Montana in 2003, at which time Respondent tookthe oath required for admission, wherein he agreed to abide by the Rules of Professional Conduct, the Disciplinary Rules adopted by the Supreme

Complaint - Page 1 07/25/2024

Case Number: PR 24-04421

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Court, and the highest standards ofhonesty,justice and morality, including but not limited to, those outlined in parts 3 and 4 of Chapter 61, Title 37, Montana Code Annotated. 2. The Montana Supreme Court has approved and adopted the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct ("MRPC"), governing the ethical conduct of attorneys licensed to practice in the State ofMontana, which Rules were in effect at all times mentioned in this Complaint. 3. Respondent was previously disciplined in 2004 for violations ofRule 1.1, Competence; Rule 1.3,Diligence; and Rule 3.2, Expediting Litigation, MRPC. 4. Respondent primarily practiced in Ravalli and Missoula counties, with

an office in Hamilton. In January 2023, Respondent began closing his office and moved to Wisconsin in approximately May 2023. Count One 5. ODC realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 4 ofthe General Allegations as iffully restated in this Count One. 6. Respondentrepresented J.C. intwo (2) family law cases:one (1) out of Ravalli County and the other in Missoula County. Respondent entered apro bono appearance on J.C.'s behalfon June 7, 2017, in Ravalli County. A hearingwas held

on June 8, 2017, and the Court entered the Final Findings ofFact, Conclusions of Law, Final Decree, and Parenting Plan, that same date.

Complaint - Page 21

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7. Throughout the following four (4) years, numerous legal issues arose between the two (2) parties including a contempt motion and Order of Protection hearing. Eventually, a new Interim Parenting Plan was entered between the parties, and a trial date was set. On December 7, 2021, the Court entered another Findings ofFact and Conclusions ofLaw. 8. In June 2022, J.C.'s former spouse and co-parent filed another Motion to Amend the parties' Final Parenting Plan. Respondent moved to withdraw, which the Court granted on July 7. 9. The Missoula County matter was initiated in March 2021 when the father ofanother ofJ.C.'s children, D.R., filed a Petition for Parenting Plan. After filing and serving his Petition, D.R. retained attorney, Stephanie DeBoer ("DeBoer"), in May 2021. 10. OnJune 8,DeBoerfiled arequestto enterdefault,andRespondentfiled

aNoticeofAppearanceforJ.C.that sameday.Thenext day, Respondent filedJ.C.'s Response to the March Petition, aswell as a Response to the Request for Default or in the Alternative, to Set Aside Default. However, no default was entered, and no other action wastaken until May 2023. 11. In early May, DoBoer ernailed Respondent seeking his position on her request for mediation. Respondent indicated he had no objection, but he would be withdrawing. On May 8 DoBoer filed a request for the parties to attend mediation.

Complaint - Page 31

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 

### The Court issued an Order on May 9, requiring the parties to complete mediation before August 15. Do

Boer again emailed Respondent and requested he either withdraw or provide J.C.'s contact information; he did not respond. DoBoer then emailed the mediator and included Respondent. 12. Respondent failed to respond to the email exchanges and a date for mediation was never set. Respondent also failed to advise J.C. of the request for rnediation or the Court's subsequent order. 13. Due to Respondent's failure to communicate, DeBoer filed a Request for Final Hearing on July 26. In the Court's July 29 Order, a final hearing was set for August 22. Neither Respondent nor J.C. appeared at the hearing, and D.R's Proposed Parenting Plan was adopted as the Final Parenting Plan that same date. 14. Respondent failed to notifyJ.C. ofthe August 22 hearing orthe Courts Order.15. CourtrecordsreflectthatonAugust23,theJudge'slawclerkattempted to call Respondent, and immediately thereafter, emailed him. The clerk asked Respondent about the status ofhis representation ofJ.C. and notified him that she had attempted to call him, but his phone number was disconnected. Respondent respondedthe followingday, statinghe did not representJ.C.,hadnot spoken to her in over a year, and had moved to Wisconsin. //

Complaint - Page 41

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 

### 16. J.C. subsequently filed aproseAffidavit on September 6,2023, which stated she had not received notice ofthe recent filings, was unaware there had been

a hearing, and she had only learned ofthe hearing after the fact, and imrnediately attempted to contact Respondent. J.C. attached copies ofher correspondence with Respondent wherein she informed him that he never withdrew from her case, and because ofthis, she was unaware of recent developments, resulting in her losing custody ofher child. 17. Respondent advised J.C. that he had moved to Wisconsin and directed her to "motion to set asidejudgment". J.C. informed Respondent she could not file anything because he was still counsel ofrecord. Respondent then informed J.C. that he had forgottenhis e-filing credentials, sohe could not file hismotiontowithdraw. J.C. asked that the Court provide her an opportunity to be heard in the matter. On September 13, the Court granted Respondent's Motion to Withdraw and set a hearing on the matter, only after allowing Respondent to file his motion via email. 18. Respondent's failure to withdraw or update J.C. as to the status ofher

case resulted inher complete lack ofawareness and missingboththe mediation, and final hearing. At which, the Court adopted a parenting plan that significantly impacted herparenting time. 19. Respondent failed to notify J.C. ofhis move from the state, his intent to withdraw, and the numerous developments and orders in her case. Respondent

Complaint - Page 51

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 

### failed to take any independent action once he discovered he and J.C. had missed a hearing and that he was still counsel of record. Respondent placed the burden of informingtheCourtand remedyingthe situation onhisclient.Respondent'sconduct

was neither competent nor diligent. 20. Respondent's conduct outlined above constitutes a violation of Rule 1.1, Competence; Rule 1.3, Diligence; Rule 1.4, Communication, and Rule 1.16, MRPC. Count Two 21. ODC realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 4 ofthe General Allegations andparagraphs 5 through 20 as iffully restated in this Count Two. 22. Respondent initially represented J.C. pro se. Thereafter, J.C. paid Respondent two (2) cash retainers: $2,500 and $3,500. 23. Respondent failed to place any of the fees into his IOLTA/Trust Account and collected and treated the entirety ofthe fees as "earned upon receipt." 24. Respondent was unable to provide invoices or time keepingrecords to reflect that he had earned the entirety ofJ.C.'s fees at the times he collected them. 25. Respondent also advised ODC that he also did not create or keep a client ledger (or ledgers) or reconcile his IOLTA/TrustAccount at any time. 26. The MRPC specifically outlines that advanced fees and costs must be placed into IOLTA and that they may only be withdrawn asthey are earned.

Complaint - Page 61

**2 3**  **4 5**  

### 27. **Respondent's conduct**  **outlined above**  **constitutes a**  **violation of**  **Rule 1.15,**  **Safekeeping Property;**  **and Rule**  **1.18, IOLTA**  **Program, MRPC.**  **Count Three**  **28. ODC**  **realleges and** **incorporates paragraphs**  **1 through** **4 of** **the General** 

**6** 

### Allegations **and paragraphs**  **5 through**  **28 as**  **if fully**  **restated in** **this Count**  **Three. 7**  **8 9**  **IO I I**  

### 29. **Respondent did**  **not provide**  **J.C. with**  **a written**  **fee agreement,**  **outlining his**  **scope of**  **work or**  **his fees,**  **even after**  **his rate**  **changed and**  **the representation** **was no**  **longer pro**  **bona. 30.**  **Respondent was**  **unable to**  **recall or**  **provide documentation depicting**  **12** 

### the **exact amounts**  **of J.C.'s**  **payments. Likewise,**  **Respondent did**  **not issue**  **receipts, 13**  **14 15**  **16 17**  **18 19**  **20 21**  **22 23**  **24 25**  

### track **his time,**  **or invoice**  **his services**  **in either**  **matter.**

**31. Respondent's**  **conduct outlined**  **above constitutes**  **a violation**  **of R**  **ule 1.5,**  **Fees, MRPC.**  **WHEREFORE, the**  **Office of** **Disciplinary Counsel**  **prays: 1.**  **That a**  **Citation be**  **issued to**  **the Respondent,**  **to which**  **shall be**  **attached a**  **copy of**  **the complaint,**  **requiring Respondent,**  **within twenty-one**  **(21) days**  **after service** **thereof, to**  **file a**  **written answer** **to the**  **complaint; 2.**  **That a**  **formal hearing** **be had** **on the**  **allegation s**  **of this** **complaint before**  **an Adjudicatory**  **Panel of** **the Commission;**  

### II

**Complaint -**  **Page 7** 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3. That the Adjudicatory Panel of the Commission make a report of its findings and recommendations after a formal hearing to the Montana Supreme Court, and, in the event the Adjudicatory Panel finds the facts warrant disciplinary action and recommends discipline, that the Commission also recommendthe nature and extent of appropriate disciplinary action, including an award of costs and expenses incurred in investigating and prosecuting this matter; and, 4. For such other and further reliefas deemed necessary and proper. DATED this i

lday ofJuly, 2024.

Complaint - Page 8 OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL 

# By: „,,„„ ,,t, .Ew t Pamela D. Bucy ChiefDisciplinary Counsel