Court Opinion

ID: 9896075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 15:08:30.664298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:36.275301
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 186

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. 20230265, 20230266

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 $1,250, 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 these disciplinary matters. Therefore, service in this
matter 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. Two formal matters
form the basis of the petition for discipline. In the first matter, Pilch was
retained to represent a couple regarding a dispute with a neighbor. He agreed
to draft a letter to the neighbor, but did not do so. Pilch did not respond to
inquiries from the clients and did not return the retainer to the clients.

[¶5] The hearing panel concluded Pilch’s conduct in the first matter violated
N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, Diligence, by failing to complete the letter requested
by the clients which was the objective of the representation; and 1.4,
Communication, by failing to keep the clients informed as to his progress with
the letter the clients were unable to make informed decisions. The clients did
not suffer an injury, but the potential for injury existed.

[¶6] In the second matter, Pilch was retained for $1,250 to assist a client with
the sale of his home. Pilch drafted the purchase agreement and was initially
somewhat communicative. Starting approximately one month before the
closing, the client was unable to reach Pilch. The client contacted the title
company, which was also unable to reach Pilch. Pilch did not attend the
closing. The hearing panel concluded Pilch’s conduct in the second matter
violated N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.16, Declining or Terminating Representation,
by failing to take reasonably practicable steps to protect the client’s interests,

                                        2
specifically, but not limited to the providing of notice of discontinuation of
services and provision of a refund of unearned monies.

[¶7] In the second matter, the hearing panel recommended we find Pilch
violated N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(e) by abandoning the client during the
pendency of the representation and that the abandonment removed Pilch’s
entitlement to the flat fee. 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 his 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 of the second client.

[¶8] The hearing panel considered the appropriate sanction under the North
Dakota Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, and concluded reprimand
was the appropriate sanction in the first matter and disbarment in the second
matter. Based on both matters, the hearing panel recommended disbarment.

[¶9] 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 on August 10, 2023, 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:

                                         3
[¶10] IT IS ORDERED that as outlined above, the findings of fact, conclusions
of law, and recommendations by the hearing panel are accepted.

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

[¶12] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Pilch pay restitution to the client in
the second matter in the amount of $1,250 within 30 days of entry of judgment.

[¶13] 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.

[¶14] 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.

[¶15] 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.

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

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

                                       4