Court Opinion

ID: 6479753
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-26 22:55:18.636189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:34.829506
License: Public Domain

WEISBERG, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
¶ 49 As the majority explains, the impact of a suspension of six months and one day is a great deal more than the impact of a suspension of only six months. Here, however, even allowing for the subjectivity that creeps into the “imperfect process” when considering proportionality, I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to reduce Phillips’s suspension from the six months and one day recommended by the Hearing Officer. I do so because, unlike the majority, I conclude that a six-month and one day suspension is internally proportionate to the two-months suspension meted out to Arentz.
¶ 50 The majority’s conclusion is understandably not based on a general proportionality review. Not only is that approach no longer favored, but it is of little benefit here because Phillips’s firm is a fairly unique “consumer” law firm with accordingly tailored practices. The disciplinary eases referenced by the parties are just not comparable enough to be helpful.
¶ 51 In this case, it is enough that Phillips’s violations are the sort for which the relevant ABA Standard mandates a suspension. Specifically, ABA Standard 7.2 provides that “[sjuspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional, and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system.” Phillips’s conduct clearly falls within that described by the ABA Standard. I therefore consider next whether Phillips’s recommended suspension of six months and one day would be proportionate to Arentz’s two months. I conclude it would.
*122¶ 52 To begin, Phillips is not being sanctioned for his second ethics violation. He is being sanctioned for his ethics violations eighteen through twenty-nine. I am not aware of any other attorney in Arizona who has committed twenty-nine violations and received only a six-month suspension for his twenty-ninth. While Arentz was arguably punished too lightly for having committed nineteen violations, and Phillips’s latest violations number twelve, Phillips had committed seventeen earlier violations. This comparison alone supports the recommended six months and one day suspension.7
¶ 53 Second, Arentz’s sanction consisting of a two-month suspension and two years of probation represents his first such sanction. It is to be hoped and presumed that this sanction will be sufficient to prevent further violations by him. Phillips, on the other hand, was punished for his earlier violations and completed that probationary period. Unfortunately, he has reoffended multiple times. Thus, a greater penalty that includes a six-month and one day suspension is both warranted and proportionate.
¶ 54 Finally, Arentz committed his ethical violations while working in a system that was developed, implemented, and supervised by Phillips. It was Phillips’s decision as to what P & A resources would be devoted to meet its attorneys’ ethical responsibilities to their clients. He clearly did not attach sufficient importance to those ethical responsibilities. As the attorney in sole charge of P & A, his fault was therefore far greater than that of Arentz.
¶ 55 For the foregoing reasons, and although I concur with all else in the majority’s opinion, I must respectfully disagree with its decision to reduce the period of Phillips’s suspension.
SHELDON H. WEISBERG, Judge.*
APPENDIX
1. Phillips shall refrain from engaging in any conduct that would violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona.
2. Phillips shall contact the director of LOMAP within thirty (30) days from the filing date of this opinion and shall schedule and submit to a LOMAP audit within forty-five (45) days thereafter. Following the audit, the director of LOMAP shall formulate and include recommendations based on the audit in a Probation Contract to be executed and implemented by Phillips. The director of LOMAP shall also monitor the terms of probation.
3. Before entering into any written attorney/client fee agreement for the firm, an Arizona licensed attorney must speak with the client and approve the legal fees to be charged and retention of the firm by the client. The attorney meeting with the potential client must be knowledgeable in the practice area, and issues that relate to the retention and retention decision must be discussed before a decision is made on the retention. Retention attorneys shall review all paperwork and ensure that appropriate information is given to the client even if the client lacks the sophistication or knowledge to ask the right questions.
4. Any nonlawyer personnel conducting initial consultations with clients must clearly and affirmatively identify themselves as non-lawyers to prospective clients.
5. Respondent shall ensure that nonlawyer staff shall not give legal advice to clients and shall not make predictions or guarantees as to the outcome of a case.
6. Standard intake forms including a standard fee agreement shall be utilized. The firm shall participate in fee arbitration whenever it is requested by the client and the firm has been unable to resolve the dispute directly with the client.
*1237. A standardized training manual for intake procedures shall be provided to each intake employee.
8. Pursuant to ER 5.3, Phillips or other attorneys with supervisory authority in the firm (over whom Phillips has direct control) will be responsible for compliance by all intake personnel and nonlawyer staff with applicable ethical rules.
9. When accepting payment of a client’s fees in a form other than cash, the firm shall not accept payment without signed, written consent (which may be evidenced by a check, electronic signature, credit card authorization, or other writing) from the party making the payment.
10. A one-time ethics training program, not to exceed three (3) hours, shall be given to all administrative staff including intake and collection personnel. The program shall be provided by the director of LOMAP or designee, and shall be given at a time within the first six (6) months of the probationary terms and in a manner that does not disrupt the firm’s practice. The program may be repeated or additional programs may be given during the probationary period if needed as determined by the director of LOMAP. The initial program shall be taped and shown to any new personnel hired during the probationary period.
11. A one-time Continuing Legal Education ethics program, not to exceed three (3) hours, shall be given to all attorneys employed by Phillips’s firm. The program shall be provided by the director of LOMAP or designee, and shall be given at a time within the first six (6) months of the probationary period and in a manner that does not disrupt the firm’s practice. The program may be repeated or additional programs may be given during the probationary period. The initial program shall be taped and shown to any new lawyers hired during the probationary period.
12. The firm shall utilize a fee review process, consistent with In re Swartz, 141 Ariz. 266, 686 P.2d 1236 (1984), and ER 1.5, at the conclusion of all eases in order to determine whether a refund is due. All attorneys and other billable staff members who work on criminal cases8 shall keep contemporaneous time records to enable the firm to conduct a “backward glance” at the conclusion of a ease in order to determine whether a refund is due.
13. The firm shall provide a written accounting of time spent and fees incurred within fifteen (15) days of request by a client. When a client terminates the firm’s representation in a criminal case and the firm has been permitted to withdraw by the court, the firm shall, within fifteen (15) days following receipt of the Order permitting withdrawal, provide to the client a written accounting of time spent, fees incurred, and when appropriate, a refund of any unearned fees.
14. If Phillips’s firm uses client testimonials in advertisements, the client must acknowledge in writing that he or she is not receiving any money benefit (or the equivalent) for the appearance.
15. Phillips shall develop a system in which he is promptly advised of all client complaint(s) against the firm or lawyers employed by the firm, which implicate the provisions of ERs 5.1 and 5.3. Phillips shall document, in writing, his or the firm’s response to each such complaint, and shall maintain a file of such complaints and responses.
16. Phillips shall make reasonable and good faith efforts to ensure compliance with these probation terms and shall respond directly or through his counsel to inquiries concerning the implementation and compliance with these probationary terms.
17. Before conducting a screening investigation into any new complaint(s) relating to practices covered by these terms and conditions of probation, the State Bar, when appropriate and consistent with its normal practice, will first attempt to resolve the complaint(s) through A/CAP and Central Intake, or will, when appropriate, consistent with its normal practice and pursuant to Rule *12454(b)(1), Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court, refer the matter for mediation. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to limit the jurisdiction or power of the State Bar disciplinary agency.
18. Bonuses to legal administrators shall not be based, in whole or in part, on the number of clients retained, the amount of fees generated, the number of clients who cancel, or the amount of fees refunded.
19. The firm shall keep accurate records for all work done on a case.
20. Phillips shall pay all costs incurred as a result of these probationary terms.
21. In the event that Phillips fails to comply with any of the foregoing conditions and the State Bar receives information thereof, bar counsel shall file with the imposing entity a Notice of Non-Compliance, pursuant to Rule 60(a)(5), Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court. The Hearing Officer shall conduct a hearing within thirty (30) days after receipt of said notice, to determine whether the terms of probation have been violated and whether an additional sanction should be imposed. In the event there is an allegation that any of these terms have been violated, the burden of proof shall be on the State Bar of Arizona to prove noncomplianee by a preponderance of the evidence.

. I also note that these most recent twelve violations of Phillips involved separate complaints by nine of P & A’s clients, while Arentz’s complaints involved only six clients.

. The record indicates that P & A has sold its criminal department. Assuming that P & A no longer offers services in criminal law, this term and others relating to P & A’s criminal department no longer apply.