Opinion ID: 2636101
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: ODC 8536: Paul A. Brooke, Esq./Edward Schmitt

Text: Although Gould indicated that he stopped acting as an agent for Bradbury when McKeonin November 2004had expressed his concerns about dealing with Gould, he continued to act as agent for others. More specifically, a year laterin November 2005,attorney Paul Brooke asked ODC for clarification and instructions relative to interacting with Gould about Edward Schmitt's worker's compensation claim. Brooke indicated that Gould had sent a settlement demand with regard to the claim and attached a copy of the demand to his request. Gould also wrote to First Insurance Company as agent for Mr. Edward Schmitt. Brooke subsequently asked ODC to consider his letter a formal complaint. In response to the Brooke complaint, Gould wrote in a letter dated January 26, 2006 that: (1) he had not held himself out as an attorney authorized to practice law; (2) [t]he labor board allows agents without a law license to help injured workers; (3) [b]ut for . . . Brooke's rudeness, [he] would not have known . . . there was a `problem'; (4) he did not believe he had acted improperly; and (5) he believed he was being treated unfairly and singled out for selective punishment because of [his] earlier mistake in judgment[.] In a letter dated April 2, 2008, the ODC concluded Gould's letter to First Insurance Company violated HRPC 3.4(e) (knowingly disobey[ing] an obligation under the rules of a tribunal), HRPC 5.5(a) (practic[ing] law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession), and HRPC 8.4(a) (violating the rules of the profession) and imposed an informal admonition.