Title: In Re Preston
Citation: 111 Ariz. 102, 523 P.2d 1303
Docket Number: N/A
State: Arizona
Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: June 27, 1974

111 Ariz. 102 (1974) 523 P.2d 1303 In the Matter of a member of the State Bar of Arizona, Robert C. PRESTON, Respondent. No. SB-44. Supreme Court of Arizona, En Banc. June 27, 1974. Robert F. Owens and Jarrett S. Jarvis, Phoenix, for State Bar of Arizona. Thomas L. Wing, Phoenix, for respondent. HAYS, Chief Justice. A complaint was filed against the respondent by a Mr. and Mrs. Williams. After referral to an administrative committee, pursuant to Rule 33 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, a formal complaint was filed. Following a hearing at which the respondent was present and represented by counsel, the committee recommended that respondent be censured for violation of DR6-102(A), which provides as follows: The committee further recommended that a charge involving respondent's failure to file an answer or other formal appearance for his client in a lawsuit be dismissed for lack of evidence. The recommendation of censure was upheld by the Board of Governors of the State Bar after a hearing at which the respondent was present. The recommendation was forwarded to this court for action thereon. The transcript of record shows that the complainant, Mr. Williams, appeared at respondent's office with a friend. He expressed dissatisfaction with respondent's services and asked for his file to take to another lawyer. Respondent refused him the file unless he signed a release. He left without the file. Respondent in his testimony denies the refusal to give the file, but he does admit that thereafter he dictated the following document and had it placed in the file: The offending document speaks for itself and clearly evidences a violation of DR6-102(A). Respondent's arguments that he didn't dictate the word "release" at the heading or that the release was Mr. Williams's idea are not persuasive. Nor do we find merit in the contention that since he had committed no malpractice, there was no harm in the release. We concur with the administrative committee and the Board of Governors in the finding that DR6-102(A) has been violated. The respondent is censured. CAMERON, V.C.J., and STRUCKMEYER, LOCKWOOD and HOLOHAN, JJ., concur.