Court Opinion

ID: 9896074
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 15:08:29.691372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:40.831790
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                         IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                      CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                          SEPTEMBER 28, 2023
                                                                       STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                   IN THE SUPREME COURT
                   STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                 2023 ND 187

In the Matter of the Application for
Disciplinary Action Against Mark J.
Pilch, a person addmitted to the the Bar of
the State of North Dakota
      ----------
Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court
of the State of North Dakota,                                      Petitioner
      v.
Mark J. Pilch,                                                   Respondent

                                 No. 20230268

Application for disciplinary action.

DISBARMENT ORDERED.

Per Curiam.

[¶1] The Supreme Court has before it a report from a hearing panel of the
disciplinary board recommending Mark J. Pilch be disbarred from the practice
of law in North Dakota, refund the client in the amount of $5,500, and pay
$250 in costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceeding. We adopt the
hearing panel’s findings and recommended sanctions and order disbarment.

[¶2] Pilch was admitted to practice law in North Dakota on April 29, 2019.
Pilch’s license was suspended October 31, 2022, for failing to comply with
continuing education reporting requirements. He did not pay a license fee for

                                       1
2023, and is not licensed at this time. In two separate matters, Pilch was
disbarred and suspended for one year, both effective August 17, 2023. See
Disciplinary Bd. v. Pilch, 2023 ND 161, 994 N.W.2d 417; See Disciplinary Bd.
v. Pilch, 2023 ND 162, 994 N.W.2d 390. Pilch practiced law at Pilch Law Firm
in Fargo, North Dakota.

[¶3] Assistant Disciplinary Counsel filed an affidavit outlining unsuccessful
efforts to serve Pilch in other recent disciplinary matters. Therefore, service
in these matters was made on the Clerk of the Supreme Court under Admission
to Practice R. 1. Pilch failed to answer the petition and Disciplinary Counsel
moved for default. Pilch is in default and the charges in the amended petition
for discipline are deemed admitted under N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 3.l(E)(2).

[¶4] On July 24, 2023, the hearing panel filed default findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and recommendations for discipline. Pilch was retained in
November 2021 to represent a client in a divorce. The client experienced
difficulty communicating with Pilch throughout the representation. Pilch
failed to respond to or notify the client of a motion to compel discovery. The
client was found in contempt and ordered to pay $1,500. Pilch also failed to
inform the client of or attend a status conference. Pilch did not complete the
representation or refund any unearned portion of the retainer. Pilch also failed
to provide the client with a copy of his file. The client was required to retain
other counsel to complete the matter.

[¶5] The hearing panel concluded Pilch’s conduct violated N.D.R. Prof.
Conduct 1.3, Diligence, by abandoning the client and not fulfilling the terms or
accomplishing the objectives of the representation. Pilch failed to promptly
respond to discovery requests, reply or otherwise comply with a motion to
compel, and failed to attend scheduled hearings and conferences. The hearing
panel concluded Pilch’s conduct violated N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.4,
Communication, by failing to make reasonable efforts to keep the client
reasonably informed as to the status of the representation, his responsibilities
therein, and the consequences as a result of Pilch’s failures; and 1.16, by failing
to take reasonably practicable steps to protect the client’s interests,
specifically, but not limited to provide notice of discontinuation or services,

                                        2
provision of a refund of unearned monies, and surrender property to which the
client was entitled.

[¶6] The hearing panel recommended we conclude Pilch abandoned
representation of the client. As we held in Baird v. Disciplinary Board, “Rule
1.16(e) imposes on a lawyer the obligations to refund fees and return files upon
termination of the representation. ‘Terminating the representation’ is not a
violation of Rule 1.16(e); rather it is the trigger for the requirements to refund
fees and return files.” 2022 ND 146, 977 N.W.2d 702. We noted another
jurisdiction concluded a lawyer abandoned his practice through a temporary
gap in representations, followed by resumed representations. Id. (citing In re
Discipl. Proc. Against Wickersham, 178 Wash.2d 653, 310 P.3d 1237, 1243-44
(2013)). In Baird, we concluded that the hearing panel found Baird abandoned
the client, but it did not find he abandoned his law practice. Similarly, in this
matter, the hearing panel concluded Pilch abandoned the client during
representation but did not conclude Pilch abandoned his law practice.
However, as in Baird, absent objection by Pilch and absent the benefit of the
full vigor of the adversarial process to resolve this question, for purposes of this
matter, we determine Pilch temporarily abandoned his practice, including his
representation the client. The hearing panel considered the appropriate
sanction under the North Dakota Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions,
and concluded disbarment was appropriate.

[¶7] On July 24, 2023, this matter was referred to this Court under N.D.R.
Lawyer Discipl. 3.1(F)(2). The hearing panel’s report was served on the Clerk
of the Supreme Court and disciplinary counsel, and forwarded to the Supreme
Court. Objections were due within 20 days of service of the report. No
objections were received, and the matter was submitted to the Court for
consideration. The Court considered the matter, and:

[¶8] IT IS ORDERED that as outlined above, the findings of fact, conclusions
of law, and recommendations by the hearing panel are accepted.

[¶9] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mark J. Pilch is DISBARRED from the
practice of law, effective immediately.

                                         3
[¶10] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Pilch pay restitution to the client in
the amount of $5,500 within 30 days of entry of judgment.

[¶11] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Pilch pay the costs and expenses of
these disciplinary proceedings in the amount of $250, payable to the Secretary
of the Disciplinary Board, 600 East Boulevard Avenue, Dept. 180, Bismarck,
North Dakota 58505-0530, within 30 days of entry of judgment.

[¶12] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for any amounts already paid by the
North Dakota Client Protection Fund on Pilch’s behalf, he make restitution
within 90 days of entry of the judgment in this matter. For any amounts
relating to this matter paid in the future by the North Dakota Client Protection
Fund, Pilch make restitution to the Fund within 90 days of receiving notice
payment was made.

[¶13] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reinstatement is governed by
N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 4.5 and cannot occur until at least five years from the
effective date of disbarment and compliance with the conditions of this order.

[¶14] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Pilch comply with N.D.R. Lawyer
Discipl. 6.3 regarding notice.

[¶15] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
      Daniel J. Crothers
      Lisa Fair McEvers
      Jerod E. Tufte
      Douglas A. Bahr

                                       4