Opinion ID: 2636101
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Gould's Five-Year Suspension

Text: On September 15, 1999, the supreme court rejected the Disciplinary Board's recommended one year and one day suspension and suspended Gould for five years. [1] The supreme court's order stated, in part: The record establishes a cavalier disregard of clear rules regarding settlement of claims, contingent fee agreements, false statements, and misrepresentation. But for the mitigating fact that Respondent Gould did not benefit financially, the egregious nature of Respondent Gould's actions would merit disbarment. (Emphasis added.) In addition to imposing the five-year suspension, the supreme court's order required full compliance with RSCH [Rule] 2.16(d) and restitution to Fireman's Fund [of] all amounts [Gould] received . . . that were not subsequently paid to his client, [the client's] health care providers, or others on [the client's] behalf. The supreme court denied Gould's motion for reconsideration and awarded costs to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC). The awarded costs were subsequently paid. Gould's suspension commenced October 15, 1999. Gould was eligible to apply for reinstatement after April 15, 2002. See RSCH Rule 2.17(b) (An attorney suspended from practice for more than one year may not apply for reinstatement until the expiration of at least one-half of the period of suspension.). On October 21, 2005, Gould petitioned the supreme court for reinstatement. On November 8, 2005, the petition was rejected without prejudice to filing with the Disciplinary Board, as required by RSCH Rule 2.17(c) (Petitions for reinstatement by a disbarred or suspended attorney shall be filed with the Board and served upon Counsel.). [2] The Disciplinary Board received Gould's petition for reinstatement on January 22, 2007.