Opinion ID: 2632550
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: brass' representation

Text: ¶ 24 Brass served as Menzies' counsel from February 13, 1998, when the district court appointed him, until he withdrew on September 9, 2003. To say that Brass did little to represent Menzies during this five-and-a-half-year period would be an understatement. In fact, Brass' representation in this case was deplorable. Our review of the record indicates that Brass not only failed to provide Menzies with any meaningful representation, but in fact willfully disregarded nearly every aspect of this case. In effect, Brass defaulted Menzies' entire post-conviction proceeding, resulting in the dismissal of Menzies' case. ¶ 25 To begin with, Brass communicated with Menzies only sparingly throughout his representation. He discussed the issues in the case at length with Menzies only once for one to two hours during an initial meetingand thereafter rarely spoke with his client, appearing to deliberately avoid any communication. Menzies consistently attempted to contact Brass by telephone to discuss various aspects of the case. Brass' office rarely answered Menzies' calls, frequently refused to accept collect calls from the prison, [4] and even hung up when they realized it was Menzies calling. This practice was conducted pursuant to Brass' instructions. Even when the staff accepted Menzies' phone calls and took messages, Brass seldom returned them. Telephone records indicate that Menzies attempted to call Brass' office literally hundreds of times but actually spoke with Brass or a member of his staff only on a handful of occasions. ¶ 26 Menzies also tried to communicate with Brass through letters and cards. In these letters, Menzies repeatedly pleaded with Brass to contact and update him on the status of his case. Brass did not keep Menzies informed about the procedural posture or progress of the case, nor did he send Menzies copies of any of the documents filed by the State, even though Menzies requested that he do so multiple times. In his communications with Brass, Menzies consistently maintained his innocence and frequently asked Brass and his staff to make sure that the case was progressing. In particular, Menzies wanted Brass to conduct alibi and mitigation investigations, repeatedly expressing concern that delaying the investigation of these matters would be harmful to his case. In its 60(b) ruling, the district court made much of the fact that Menzies told Brass in several letters that he had full confidence in him and to take whatever time was needed. According to the district court, Menzies was aware of circumstances that called into question the quality of Mr. Brass' representation and the progress of his case, and despite his concerns with Mr. Brass' representation and the lack of progress in his case, [Menzies] intentionally acquiesced in the delay of his case by keeping Mr. Brass as his attorney. However, a careful reading of the record shows that Brasswhen Menzies was able to communicate with himand several other attorneys and staff members who were affiliated with Brass, repeatedly told Menzies to have faith in Brass' representation and that Brass would do a good job. Moreover, Brass himself has indicated that Menzies asked him to resolve the case without delay. Thus, a more accurate reading of the record is that Menzies kept Brass as his attorney because he was not fully aware of the status of his case, and he was continually reassured that Brass was taking care of things. ¶ 27 Brass never conducted or hired anyone to conduct an investigation, notwithstanding Menzies' requests and the fact that the record indicates that extensive investigation on these subjects was needed in order to properly litigate Menzies' claims. After he was appointed, Brass received a letter from Menzies' prior counsel informing him that she had the $2,000 in investigative funds previously awarded by the court in her possession. However, Brass never sought or obtained these funds from her; [5] the record also indicates that Brass did not consult Menzies' pro bono team about the case. Nor did Brass ever challenge the adequacy of the funds or request any additional funds from the Division of Finance. In fact, the only funding Brass ever requested or received in connection with his representation of Menzies was his initial $5,000 appointment fee. ¶ 28 Brass' representation of Menzies before the district court was equally deficient. Shortly after Brass was appointed, the district court held a scheduling conference to establish cutoff dates for Menzies to file a second amended petition for post-conviction relief, for discovery, and for the parties to file dispositive motions. A scheduling order was then entered giving Menzies until April 16, 1998, to file his second amended petition. However, Brass failed to file a petition by that date. On July 15, 1998, the district court modified the prior scheduling order and gave Menzies until August 17, 1998, to file his petition. On July 22, 1998, the court held another scheduling conference wherein it modified several other cutoff dates and also ordered LDA to produce all relevant documents by November 9, 1998. Brass again failed to file Menzies' second amended petition by the modified deadline. On August 31, 1998, Brass finally filed a two-page second amended petition, which did little more than re-state the arguments that had been made in the first amended petition filed by Menzies' pro bono counsel on May 2, 1995. ¶ 29 On September 25, 1998, the State filed both its answer to and a motion to dismiss Menzies' second amended petition. As in its original motion to dismiss, the State argued that all of Menzies' claims except those relating to ineffective assistance of trial counsel should be dismissed because they had either been raised on direct appeal or could have been raised on direct appeal. Brass did not file a brief opposing the State's motion. On October 8, 1998, the State moved the court to extend the discovery deadline from October 15 to December 15, citing a need to review an index of all LDA documents relating to the underlying criminal trial in order to complete discovery. The court granted this motion on October 29. ¶ 30 On November 24, 1998, the State provided notice that it intended to depose Menzies on December 10. However, on December 9, Brass cancelled the deposition. On December 22, the district court held a hearing on the State's motion to dismiss. The court granted the State's unopposed motion and ordered that the first seventy-one claims for post-conviction relief asserted in Menzies' amended petition be dismissed. On that same day, the State filed a motion to compel Menzies' deposition; the court ordered Menzies to respond by January 4, 1999. Brass never filed a response. ¶ 31 On February 2, 1999, Menzies, the State, and LDA moved the court to vacate, amend, and clarify the discovery order of September 16, 1996, to conform to this court's decision in Salt Lake Legal Defender Ass'n v. Uno, 932 P.2d 589 (Utah 1997). The court did so on February 4, issuing an order addressing all of the previous discovery-based motions filed by the parties. The court ordered LDA to produce all documents not protected by the work product doctrine and to prepare an index of all remaining documents. LDA filed its privilege log with the court on April 9, 1999. ¶ 32 On June 11, the district court entered an order granting the State's motion to compel Menzies' deposition, noting that the motion was unopposed. On July 19, the district court extended the discovery cutoff date, ordering that the parties complete discovery by December 31, 1999. On September 2, 1999, the State filed a motion for permission to schedule Menzies' deposition. The court granted the motion, and following several cancellations due to conflicts in the parties' schedules, Menzies' deposition was scheduled for November 5, 1999. On November 4, Brass again called counsel for the State and told them that it would be inappropriate for Menzies to be deposed before an alibi investigation could be conducted. Brass apparently made this assertion notwithstanding the fact that he had made no effort to conduct such an investigation. Menzies' deposition, however, proceeded as scheduled. Brass did not attend but instead sent Julie George, an attorney who was neither rule 8 qualified nor familiar with the case in any way. When George arrived at the prison, Menzies did not know who she was and was not even aware that the deposition was scheduled. Nonetheless, Menzies participated in the deposition, answering certain questions and refusing to answer others on George's advice. The deposition was finally terminated when Menzies, acting on George's advice, asserted his right under the Fifth Amendment to refuse to answer questions about his communications with the attorneys who represented him in his criminal trial. ¶ 33 On December 3, 1999, the State filed a second motion to compel Menzies' deposition. In its motion, the State requested that the court instruct Menzies on the extent of the Fifth Amendment privilege, order Menzies to answer all questions not protected by the privilege, and impose sanctions precluding Menzies from introducing evidence in the event Menzies refused to answer. On December 23, 1999, the State moved to strike the discovery deadline due to the delays. Brass failed to file a response to either of the State's motions, and the court subsequently granted both of them. The State rescheduled Menzies' deposition for June 1, 2000, and completed deposing Menzies on that date. Brass represented Menzies at the deposition, again asserting a blanket objection to the deposition. ¶ 34 On October 9, 2000, the State filed a motion seeking permission to serve Menzies with additional interrogatories. Once again, Brass did not file any response to the State's motion. On December 4, 2000, the court granted the State's motion, and an order to this effect was entered on December 20, 2000. On December 18, 2000, the State served Menzies with a document production request and a second set of interrogatories. When Menzies did not timely respond, the State notified Brass on January 24 via hand-delivered letter that it would move for an order compelling discovery if it did not receive the outstanding discovery by February 9, 2001. Brass did not respond to the letter and did not provide the State with any of the requested discovery. Consequently, on February 15, 2001, the State moved the court to compel Menzies' discovery responses. Brass again filed no response to the State's motion to compel. On March 28, 2001, the district court granted the State's motion to compel and ordered Menzies to immediately provide the requested discovery. In its order, the court stated, The extensive period since discovery began has provided [Menzies] with ample opportunity to investigate his claims; consequently, [Menzies] should have the information to answer the outstanding discovery readily available. ¶ 35 Despite the court's order, Brass did not provide the State with any of the requested discovery. Brass likewise did not inform Menzies of his failures to comply with discovery and did not send Menzies copies of any of the State's discovery requests. Indeed, at an evidentiary hearing held before the district court, Brass acknowledged that Menzies did not have personal knowledge of any of the discovery issues at a time that he could have done anything about them. In fact, Menzies did not even know that Brass had defaulted on the various discovery motions until August 12, 2003. Brass has since stated that he did not respond to any of the State's discovery requests because he had not done any investigation and therefore had no information to provide. Brass has also acknowledged that he could have informed the district court that he did not comply with discovery because of his failure to investigate and could have requested more time in order to do so. He did neither of these things. ¶ 36 On April 19, 2001, the State moved for sanctions pursuant to rule 37 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, requesting that the court prohibit Menzies from introducing any evidence to support his claims beyond what was already in the record. In its motion, the State argued that sanctions were warranted because Menzies had willfully refused to respond to discovery requests and had purposely delayed the proceedings. Once again, Brass failed to respond. Brass did not inform Menzies that the State had moved for sanctions and did not provide Menzies with a copy of the State's motion. Nor did he communicate with the district court regarding the reasons for his discovery failures. On June 27, 2001, the district court granted the State's motion, thereby prohibiting Menzies from introducing any further evidence to support his claims. Brass did not tell Menzies about the court order or explain to Menzies that he could no longer investigate his claims. ¶ 37 On October 29, 2001, the State moved for summary judgment. The State sought to dismiss Menzies' entire post-conviction petition, arguing that because Menzies could not introduce any further evidence to support his claims, the State was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law on the existing record. Brass made no effort to defeat the State's motion; he has subsequently stated that he did not even review the record to attempt to find disputed material facts. Brass has also testified that he was not in a position to know whether the facts were in dispute because he had not investigated Menzies' claims. Again, Brass failed to respond to the State's summary judgment motion. He likewise did not contact the court to ask for more time or to inform the court as to why the facts were not in dispute. Nor did Brass inform Menzies about the State's motion or send Menzies a copy of it. On December 7, 2001, the district court granted the State's summary judgment motion. An order to this effect was entered on January 11, 2002, dismissing Menzies' petition in its entirety with prejudice. ¶ 38 On January 23, 2002, Brass spoke with Menzies on the telephone. Menzies asserts that Brass told him the State was trying to get a summary judgment, but not to worry about it because there was a discovery stay in place for the State. If Brass said this, it was an outright lie; the record reflects that no discovery stay was ever imposed, and the State's summary judgment motion had already been granted due to Brass' failures to comply with discovery. In any event, Brass did not communicate with Menzies for nearly a year following this conversation, even though Menzies repeatedly tried to contact him both by telephone and through letters. At no point did Brass inform Menzies that his case had actually been dismissed. ¶ 39 On February 11, 2002, Brass filed a notice of appeal with the district court indicating that he was appealing the summary judgment to the Utah Supreme Court. However, Brass did not file a docketing statement within the time required by rule 9 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, and this court dismissed the appeal. We then allowed Menzies to avoid the dismissal by filing a transcript request; Brass indicated that no transcript was required. We set a briefing schedule, but Brass never filed an appellate brief even though we twice granted him additional time to do so. The State filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and Brass failed to respond. We dismissed Menzies' appeal on November 21, 2002, but indicated that if a brief were filed within ten days we would reinstate the appeal. Brass never filed a brief, so we entered a notice of decision dismissing Menzies' appeal on December 19, 2002. Brass did not inform Menzies of any of these developments. ¶ 40 While the faulty appeal was proceeding in this court, Brass filed with the district court a motion to set aside the summary judgment pursuant to rule 60(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure on April 11, 2002. This motion was not accompanied by a memorandum but stated that [t]he specific grounds for this motion shall be set forth in a subsequent memorandum. Brass never filed a supporting memorandum. ¶ 41 On December 30, 2002, nearly a year after the case had been dismissed, Brass finally sent a letter to Menzies informing him about the summary judgment. In the letter, Brass stated, The Attorney General's office has managed to obtain a summary judgment in your writ based upon our alleged failures to comply with certain discovery requests on their part. This is my responsibility and not yours. I am doing what is necessary to have this set aside. Menzies received this letter on January 2, 2003. Menzies wrote a reply letter to Brass that same day. He expressed that he did not know what discovery requests Brass was referring to and asked Brass to contact him as soon as possible to explain why the summary judgment had been entered. Following Menzies' letter, Brass made no contact with Menzies for nearly two months. On January 10, 2003, the State requested permission from the district court to file a late response to Menzies' unsupported motion to set aside. Again, Brass filed no responsive memoranda, and the State filed a notice to submit the matter for decision on January 29, 2003. Before the district court could rule on the matter, however, Judge Lewis was assigned to the case. Brass promptly notified the State of a potential conflict; Judge Lewis had performed Brass' wedding. On March 6, 2003, Judge Lewis recused herself from the case, and the case was subsequently reassigned to Judge Brian. ¶ 42 Brass finally visited with Menzies at the prison on March 5, 2003. At the meeting, Brass informed Menzies that he was going to need a new lawyer, although he did not tell Menzies that he was going to withdraw or give Menzies any impression that he was going to stop representing him. Brass also told Menzies once again that he was doing what was necessary to set aside the summary judgment. Brass did not discuss the procedural history of the case with Menzies, explain his various defaults that led to summary judgment, or tell Menzies that he had defaulted the appeal and failed to file a memorandum supporting the motion to set aside. ¶ 43 In June of 2003, Menzies' current counsel, attorney Elizabeth Hunt, attended a capital litigation seminar. While attending the seminar, Hunt was asked to check on Utah's death row cases to ensure that nothing was falling through the cracks. On July 21, 2003, Hunt contacted Thomas Brunker, the State's counsel of record in this case. Brunker informed Hunt about Menzies' case, and Hunt promptly contacted Menzies and began researching and preparing to represent him. On August 12, 2003, Hunt showed Menzies the case dockets and explained the procedural posture of the case. This was the first time that Menzies had knowledge that Brass had defaulted during the discovery process, that the summary judgment had been imposed due to these defaults, and that Brass had defaulted in the appeal. On that same day, Hunt filed an appearance as Menzies' counsel, a motion to appoint rule 8 qualified counsel, and a memorandum supporting the 60(b) motion to set aside the summary judgment that Brass had filed over a year earlier. In the memorandum supporting the 60(b) motion, the bulk of Menzies' argument focused on the errors made by Brass that led to summary judgment. ¶ 44 On August 29, 2003, the State filed a memorandum opposing the 60(b) motion. On September 9, 2003, Brass withdrew as counsel. He has subsequently admitted that while he may technically meet the requirements of rule 8, he do[es] not understand the complex procedural rules governing capital cases in state and federal post-conviction proceedings, and that he cannot adequately represent a capital defendant in post-conviction cases. The 60(b) motion was argued before the district court on September 22, 2003, and the matter was taken under advisement. On November 6, 2003, Hunt was formally appointed to represent Menzies. On November 7, the district court scheduled an evidentiary hearing for December 15, 2003, in order to obtain evidence relating to communications between Brass and Menzies during the period of Brass' representation. The State moved for permission to conduct discovery in preparation for the evidentiary hearing, and Menzies opposed the motion. On December 4, 2003, the district court entered an order allowing both parties to conduct discovery in preparation for the evidentiary hearing and continued the hearing until January 15, 2004. The State subsequently requested that Menzies produce all documents relating to communications with his prior post-conviction counselboth Brass and the pro bono team that had first represented him. The State's theory appears to have been that the evidence pertaining to the pro bono team was relevant to Brass' diligence, for if their investigation had been damaging or unfruitful, it would explain Brass' failure to investigate. ¶ 45 Menzies objected to the State's request, arguing that the material the State sought was protected work product. The disputed materials appear to have been documents created by the private investigator for Menzies' prior pro bono counsel based on his preliminary investigation. He filed an index of withheld documents that he requested the judge to review in-camera, and moved for a protective order and for permission to file the protected documents under seal. In his motions, Menzies asked the district court to follow the standard for the discovery of attorney work product set forth in Salt Lake Legal Defender Ass'n v. Uno, 932 P.2d 589 (Utah 1997). At a hearing held on January 7, 2003, the district court denied Menzies' motions, ordered Menzies to produce all the documents that had previously been withheld, and allowed the State to make working copies of the disputed documents but ordered them not to disseminate the information to any third parties. The evidentiary hearing proceeded as planned on January 15. Menzies again objected when the State began referring to the disputed documents. The court took the matter under advisement and reviewed Uno as well as the disputed documents over the evening recess. When the court reconvened the next day, it ruled that the disputed documents were inadmissible. It also ordered the State not to make any copies of the documents and to destroy the copies it already possessed at the conclusion of the hearing. The court indicated that if the State wished to question witnesses based on the materials, it should discuss the matter at side bar along with Menzies' counsel, and then the questioning will proceed on a question-and-an-opportunity-to-object basis for each question. Following the evidentiary hearing, Menzies filed a proposed order relating to the destruction of the documents the district court had ruled inadmissible at the evidentiary hearing. The State objected to Menzies' proposed order, arguing that it went beyond the scope of the court's instructions, and filed its own proposed order. ¶ 46 On February 26, 2003, the court issued its 60(b) ruling. The court analyzed Menzies' claims under four separate subsections of rule 60(b): 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(4) through (6). The court found that Brass' representation clearly constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, stating that Brass' actions were inexplicable failures to follow rudimentary procedural requirements and comply with court-ordered deadlines. According to the court, Brass' inaction appears to have been willful and deliberate rather than the result of ignorance or carelessness. While the court held that Menzies should not be held accountable for Brass' failures, it held that Menzies could be held accountable for his own failures. According to the district court, Menzies must still exercise that level of diligence that a reasonably prudent person in his circumstances would exercise. The court found that a reasonably prudent person in [Menzies'] circumstances would have, at a minimum, contacted the court about his concerns and would have dismissed Brass as counsel of record. The court thus held that Menzies had acted unreasonably under the circumstances and denied his motion for 60(b) relief. ¶ 47 On April 5, 2004, the district court issued its order regarding the destruction of the documents that had been held inadmissible at the January 15 evidentiary hearing. The court ordered the State to destroy all the documents that had been on Menzies' index of withheld documents unless any of the documents had already been in its possession or were provided to the State from another source. In addition, the court ordered the State not to disseminate the information contained in the documents or investigate matters learned of from its review of the documents. ¶ 48 On April 22, 2004, Menzies filed a notice of appeal with the district court indicating that he would seek review of the court's denial of 60(b) relief as well as the order regarding the destruction of the inadmissible documents. Menzies' appeal is now before this court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 78-2-2(3)(i) (2002).