Opinion ID: 1161184
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: report, findings of fact, and recommendations preliminary discussion

Text: Under its rules of January 1, 1965, Creating and Governing the Commission on Practice of the Supreme Court of Montana, this Court imposed upon this Commission the duty to receive and investigate complaints of alleged misconduct on the part of any lawyer in the State of Montana ( Rule III ), and gave to this Commission the option of either referring the complaint to a Grievance Committee or    as otherwise directed by the Commission on practice    (Rule IV (b)). Formal complaints seeking disciplinary action against an attorney shall be prepared (or authorized) by the Commission on Practice and signed by any interested person (Rule V(a)); and those filed in the Supreme Court shall be conducted in the name of the State of Montana, and shall be prosecuted by the Attorney General with the aid and assistance of one or more members of the Bar of Montana ( Rule IX ). The Legislature of the State of Montana directed the Attorney General to conduct an investigation of the Workmen's Compensation Division of the State of Montana for any improprieties in the operation of that department. In the latter part of 1973, a complaint against Luke McKeon was received by the Commission. Fearing prejudice with respect to any criminal prosecution, the Attorney General requested Mr. Patrick F. Hooks, Esq., Secretary of this Commission, to have the Commission refrain from taking immediate action. Shortly thereafter a complaint against L.R. Bretz was received from Eugene Hall, Sr., the substance of which is incorporated in Count Four of the current complaint. In deference to the request from the Attorney General, the Commission delayed action on both complaints. Subsequently McKeon was prosecuted, pled guilty to felony counts, and was disbarred by this Court. On January 30, 1974, the Attorney General acting in the name of, and by authority of, the State of Montana, filed a joint information in the State District Court in Cascade County, Montana, against Respondent L.R. Bretz and one Gloria Eusek Carden alleging some 28 different felony counts charging larceny, forgery, and theft involving Workmen's Compensation claimants who were clients of Respondent Bretz. There was extensive newspaper notoriety throughout Montana which has periodically continued to date. The record will disclose that those 28 counts were subsequently dismissed in the Cascade County District Court and later filed and incorporated in an information containing 58 counts. During the months of July and August, 1974, this Commission discussed the charges, the potential seriousness thereof, their impact on the public, particularly in view of Watergate, and the extensive newspaper publicity in Montana concerning the charges. The Commission agreed to the advisability of securing special counsel, independent of the office of the Attorney General, to investigate the incidents and report back to the Commission on Practice so that the Commission could determine whether or not the matters justified immediate official, formal action and consideration by this Commission. To that end the Commission solicited and secured the services of William Bellingham, Esq., with assistance from Earl J. Hanson, Esq., and Neil E. Ugrin, Esq., all practicing lawyers who have no official connection with the office of the Attorney General. Under date September 12, 1974, the Commission received a formal letter from the Attorney General advising that as required by legislation he was conducting an investigation of the affairs of the Workmen's Compensation Division of the State of Montana, that he had developed factual information from his investigation of a course of conduct on the part of Respondent L.R. Bretz which appeared to violate the Code of Professional Responsibility for Attorneys. On or about October 23, 1974, Special Counsel Bellingham and Patrick Hooks, Esq., Secretary of this Commission, met with Mr. Richard Dzivi, special assistant of the Attorney General; were shown by him copy of the criminal information which had been filed in Cascade County in July, 1974; and were shown copies of those papers filed by the Respondent Bretz in that County Court in support of a motion to strike the information. Except that one of the client accounts filed by Mr. Bretz in the Cascade County District Court in July, 1974, in support of the motion to strike ended in a -$24 and which may have been one of the accountings submitted in evidence at the time of the hearing in this case, none of the remaining evidential material pertaining to the Six Counts filed in the complaint herein were discussed nor examined by Mr. Hooks, who left the meeting prior to the time that Mr. Bellingham departed. If there were written statements from any witnesses, in the files of the Attorney General, none of them were disclosed to either Mr. Bellingham or Mr. Hooks. After the initial contact with Mr. Dzivi described above, Mr. Bellingham, or Mr. Hanson, or Mr. Ugrin interviewed witnesses who later testified at the hearing in this case. After those interviews, Mr. Bellingham drafted a complaint which he felt should be considered by this Commission, copies of which were submitted to each Commission member. Since the law firm of which Commissioner John H. Weaver is a member negotiated a settlement with Respondent Bretz involved in one of the Counts, Mr. Weaver disqualified himself from any further participation. A meeting of the Commission was held in Missoula, Montana, on November 2, 1974. Mr. Bellingham met with the Commission at that time; expressed his view that on the basis of the interviews with the witnesses that had been carried out, and the allegations as set forth in the complaint, that a formal hearing was warranted at which the Respondent Bretz would be entitled to hear the evidence, present his defense, and the Commission would be in a position to weigh and judge that evidence. None of the oral or documentary evidence presented at the time of the hearing was presented to nor considered by the Commission at that meeting. The Commission discussed the matter pro and con including the extensive newspaper reports of the July filings in Cascade County, and concluded that the matter was sufficiently serious to the Bar of the State of Montana, the public, and Respondent, that a complaint should be filed, and a formal hearing conducted. There was also some discussion with respect to whether or not there should be a temporary suspension of Respondent pending the outcome of the hearings, but it was unanimously agreed by the Commission that Respondent was entitled to the presumption of innocence of the charges until proved otherwise in accordance with due process procedures, that since the Commission had not received or considered the evidence, that the Commission was not warranted in making any prejudgment of the matter on the basis of the information which it had received, and that no suggestion should be presented to the Supreme Court one way or the other with respect to the matter of temporary suspension or other procedures prior to a formal hearing. Prior to the hearing, Mr. Bellingham withdrew as a Special Prosecutor and Frederick Moulton, Esq., substituted in his place. At all times the Special Counsel working on this matter in connection with the processing of the complaint in this case worked independently of the office of the Attorney General. Although they interviewed numerous witnesses, at no time did they ever take any written statement from any witness, and the substance of the evidence which they learned in those interviews was all presented at the hearing in this case. Likewise, except to procure the issuance of subpoenas, none of the Special Prosecutors ever consulted with nor discussed the case with any member of the Commission prior to nor during the hearing. Except for the initial meeting on or about October 23, 1974, described above, when Mr. Hooks and Mr. Bellingham met with Richard Dzivi, no member of this Commission prior to the hearing of this cause ever saw any of the documentary evidence produced at the hearing; nor heard nor discussed any of the oral evidence produced at the hearing, nor the substance thereof; nor had any oral or written contact with any witnesses; nor, except for the administrative act of issuing subpoenas when requested, had any contact with Special Counsel processing the complaint. No member of this Commission prior to the conclusion of the hearing and the subsequent study of the record after the record had been prepared either had or expressed any opinion with respect to the ultimate decision to be reached in this matter. Neither the Attorney General nor any of his administrative assistants participated in the preparation of the complaint, nor the investigation nor procurement of any evidence in support of the complaint, nor the preparation nor presentation of any material at the hearing itself. All such matters were taken care of by the members of the Montana Bar Association selected to do so by this Commission. Neither the Attorney General nor any of his administrative assistants participated in nor had any connection with the deliberations by the Commission, and the transcribed record has never been disclosed to anyone except this Commission, and Respondent. The complaint in this matter was filed in this Court on November 5, 1974, and promptly served upon the Respondent. Under date November 27, 1974, Respondent answered the complaint and filed separately a Motion for Continuance on these grounds: Said Motion is submitted on the grounds and for the reasons that any further proceedings in this particular matter would be prejudicial and in violation of Mr. Bretz' constitutional rights as to the criminal matters presently pending. Additionally, Mr. Bretz and his attorney do not have sufficient time in which to attend hearings or meet the allegations against the Respondent at this time due to the fact of previous commitments as to the pending criminal matters. No factual affidavits nor legal memoranda were submitted in support of this motion, and it was denied by the Commission. Under date December 18, 1974, Respondent filed a Motion to Quash or Strike including as grounds that the complaint was not filed in accordance with the rules of the Commission on Practice of the Supreme Court; that the complaint reflects a prejudgment by the Commission on Practice which would have to be overcome by the Respondent before the evidence could be weighed thoroughly and impartially by the members of the Commission which appeared to Respondent to be the parties complaining, triers of fact, prosecutors, and judge. There were other matters requesting the striking of allegations from the complaint. A brief without citation of any legal authority was submitted in support of this motion, and the motion after due consideration was denied. Served on Respondent by mail on February 13, 1975, was an order setting this matter for hearing at Great Falls, Montana at 1:30 p.m. on February 27, 1975. It should be noted that between the date of July 30, 1974, when the Attorney General filed the joint information in the State District Court in Cascade County, Montana, until the complaint was filed in this matter on November 5, 1974 before this Commission, Respondent had the opportunity in those criminal proceedings through available discovery procedures of securing any and all evidence that the law permitted pertaining to the charges. Likewise, between the date the Complaint now under consideration by this Commission was filed in this Court on November 5, 1974, and the date of the hearing on February 27, 1975, Respondent had the privilege through the normal discovery procedures of procuring any and all non-privileged evidence pertaining to the complaint in the hands of either the members of the Commission, or in the hands of the Special Counsel processing the complaint, or from the clients of Respondent Bretz named in the six counts set forth in the complaint. At no time prior to the commencement of the hearing were there any procedures taken by Respondent for production or discovery of any evidence. Furthermore, it is manifest from the record that Respondent actually had already in his file long prior to the filing of the complaint on November 5, 1974, all of the documentary evidence that was actually produced at the hearing. After the hearing had commenced, Respondent repeated the grounds of motion outlined above which had previously been denied by the Commission. Respondent also requested a continuance until the Special Prosecutor produced, for examination, all statements taken from any and all witnesses. Respondent cited to the Commission in support of his motion two decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States  Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215, and Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657, 77 S.Ct. 1007, 1 L.Ed.2d 1103. The motion was taken under advisement. The Commission ascertained that no written statements had ever been procured from any witness by Special Counsel prosecuting the complaint. Furthermore, Respondent had in his own files copies of all documentary evidence in the official files of Montana's Workmen's Compensation Division submitted by Special Prosecuting Counsel, along with considerable additional documentary evidence procurable only from Respondent's own files. During the progress of the hearing, the Commission read the two decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States cited and relied upon by Counsel for Respondent. After Special Counsel had submitted all evidence in support of the complaint, after the Commission had the benefit of reading the decisions relied upon by Respondent, and after Respondent had commenced and was well along in presenting his evidence in defense, the Commission denied all motions by Respondent. As reflected above, Commissioner John H. Weaver disqualified himself before the complaint was filed. There is no evidence of any bias or prejudice or pre-judgment by Commissioner Patrick F. Hooks. Nevertheless, in order to insure that Respondent has been afforded all protections contemplated under the requirements of due process, Commissioner Hooks disqualified himself before the transcript of the record was completed. Neither Commissioner Weaver nor Commissioner Hooks have participated with the remaining members of the Commission in weighing and evaluating the evidence in the record, nor in the formulation of the Findings of Fact and Recommendations by the Commission to the Court. Count Six of the complaint was dismissed on motion of the Special Prosecutor. This cause came on regularly to be heard at Great Falls, Montana on the 27th day of February, 1975, before a Hearing Committee composed of Commission members W.T. Boone, Chairman and Hearing Officer, Patrick F. Hooks, Milton G. Anderson, Thomas M. Ask, Carl M. Davis, Cale J. Crowley, and Baxter Larson. Attorneys Fred Moulton, Earl J. Hanson, and Neil E. Ugrin were present as Special Prosecutors; the Respondent attorney was personally present and represented by his attorney, Mr. Charles F. Moses. Thereupon oral and documentary evidence was introduced and the hearing was concluded on March 1st, 1975. Following the conclusion of the hearing a transcript of the testimony was obtained which, together with the Exhibits introduced, have now been reviewed by the members of the Hearing Committee, and from their consideration of the same, the Hearing Committee now makes and adopts the following: