http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/233242-lawsuit-abuse-bill-passes-house-committee
Lawsuit abuse bill passes House committee
BY JESSICA M. KARMASEK
WASHINGTON (Legal Newsline) - The House Judiciary Committee on Thursday approved legislation aimed at reducing frivolous lawsuits and improving attorney accountability.
The committee passed HR 966, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act or LARA, by a vote of 20-13.
According to the bill's text, the legislation amends the sanctions provisions in Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to require the court to impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm or party that has violated, or is responsible for the violation of, the rule with regard to representations to the court. It also requires any sanction to compensate parties injured by the conduct in question.
The measure also removes a provision that prohibits filing a motion for sanctions if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets.
HR 966 also authorizes the court to impose additional sanctions, including striking the pleadings, dismissing the suit, nonmonetary directives or penalty payments if warranted for effective deterrence.
In 1993, federal rules mandating sanctions for frivolous suits were watered down, resulting in the current crisis of widespread lawsuit abuse, the judicial committee explained.
LARA restores accountability for attorneys by reinstating monetary sanctions against lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits, House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith said in a statement.
"Lawsuit abuse has become too common in American society partly because the lawyers who bring these cases have everything to gain and nothing to lose," said Smith, who filed the bill.
"Plaintiffs' lawyers can file frivolous suits, no matter how absurd the claims, without any penalty. Meanwhile defendants are faced with the choice of years of litigation, high court costs and attorneys' fees or a settlement. Many of these cases have cost innocent people and business owners their reputations and hundreds of thousands of dollars."
The Texas Republican added, "The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act restores accountability to our legal system by reinstating mandatory sanctions for attorneys who file meritless suits. Though LARA will not stop all lawsuit abuse, it encourages attorneys to think twice before filing a frivolous lawsuit."
The American Association for Justice, a trial lawyers lobbying group, argues that the measure is a favor to big corporations and undermines the rights of American workers and consumers.
"This bill imposes rules that were in place from 1983 to 1993, which judges and legal scholars ruled a complete failure," AAJ President Gibson Vance said in a statement.
"With this legislation, Congress forces our courts to turn back the clock to a rule that did not work and that judges themselves have found to be unnecessary and ineffective."
The AAJ says Rule 11, as it is currently written, gives judges the flexibility to determine when to enforce sanctions against attorneys who file lawsuits containing errors or for improper purposes.
It contends HR 966 would take away that flexibility, replacing the discretion of federal court judges with congressionally-mandated rules that were previously tested and found to be "a complete failure."
The American Bar Association, Judicial Conference of the United States and a coalition of consumer groups all have written letters to Congress opposing the legislation.
From Legal Newsline: Reach Jessica Karmasek by e-mail at jessica@legalnewsline.com.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Vanessa Kachadurian, Recent California Disbarments
http://www.calbarjournal.com/July2011/AttorneyDiscipline/Disbarments.aspx#12
They shortly will be adding one for Elder Abuse. Shame Shame, you getting your eyes full my cheeky deceptive little monkey?
MARK STEVEN WILLIAMS [#177754], 58, of Menlo Park was disbarred May 13, 2011, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Williams violated an earlier rule 9.20 order by failing to submit to the court an affidavit stating that he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other interested parties of his suspension. Although he filed a declaration of compliance three months late, failure to comply with the rule is grounds for disbarment.
The underlying discipline, imposed in 2008, followed misdemeanor convictions for trespassing and fleeing from a park ranger. The bar court’s review department found that neither conviction involved moral turpitude and reduced a disbarment recommendation to a suspension.
Williams, who is both a lawyer and a doctor, was disciplined again in 2010 for three acts of misconduct — he committed acts of moral turpitude by make false and misleading statements on applications for hospital privileges, did not notify the State Bar of disciplinary action taken against him by the medical board, and he failed to uphold the law. His medical license was revoked in 1999 and he was subsequently employed by a law firm, where he represented himself as a doctor, without notifying his employer that his license had been revoked.
In recommending disbarment, Judge Richard Honn wrote that Williams “has demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with the professional obligations and rules of court imposed on California attorneys although he has been given opportunities to do so.”
STEVE SEHAENG KWON [#222338], 47, of Diamond Bar was disbarred May 13, 2011, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
Kwon stipulated that he violated an earlier rule 9.20 order by failing to submit to the court an affidavit stating that he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other interested parties of his suspension. He filed a declaration of compliance about five weeks late. He also did not meet with the probation department by the required deadline.
He was disciplined in 2009 for failing to perform legal services competently and committing acts of moral turpitude, and again in 2010 for failing to comply with probation conditions.
In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar’s investigation and demonstrated remorse.
STEPHEN LEE BURNS [#113371], 60, of Burbank was disbarred May 13, 2011, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
Burns stipulated to 16 counts of misconduct in five matters, including three instances of misappropriating client funds.
In one matter, for example, he settled a personal injury case for his minor client for $15,000. He was sanctioned twice for not obeying court orders and the court ultimately dismissed the case with prejudice for Burns’ failure to prosecute. Although the court set aside the dismissal, it warned Burns that the case would be dismissed again if he failed to resolve his client’s compromise. When that did not happen, the court sanctioned Burns again and took over jurisdiction of the case.
The court issued a series of orders, but Burns did not follow through on obtaining settlement funds. He therefore never deposited any funds in an interest-bearing account for the minor’s benefit. He allowed the balance in his trust account to fall below the required amount and stipulated that he misappropriated $3,123.59. He also admitted that he failed to obey court orders, disburse client funds promptly or perform legal services competently.
Burns misappropriated $15,000 from a couple who were injured in an automobile accident, and $4,725 from another client without telling her that he’d settled her claim.
He stipulated that his misconduct “was surrounded by dishonesty, concealment and an inability to account to his clients.” Burns also was disciplined in 2005 for misconduct in five personal injury cases, most involving misusing his client trust account and/or failing to perform legal services competently.
RICHARD ALLAN WHITE [#78566], 64, of Palmdale was disbarred May 14, 2011, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
White stipulated to eight counts of misconduct in four cases, including two misappropriations totaling $20,967. He deposited the proceeds of a sale of a community residence, totaling $18,510, in his client trust account, but a levy by the California Tax Franchise Board reduced the balance to $10,829. White then wrote a check for $10,000 that he deposited in his personal bank account.
In a second matter, he misappropriated almost $2,500 he should have used to pay his client’s doctors.
He used his client trust account to pay business and personal expenses and instead of withdrawing attorney’s fees from 15 settlements, he left those fees in the account.
In mitigation, White cooperated with the bar’s investigation.
DANIEL SCOTT BROWN [#158025], 48, of Danville was disbarred May 14, 2011, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Brown practiced law while not entitled and he failed to comply with the requirements of a previous disciplinary order.
Brown was placed on inactive status in 2009 for failing to respond to disciplinary charges filed against him. He appeared in court on behalf of two clients and otherwise participated by phone when he was not entitled to practice. By holding himself out as eligible to practice, he also committed acts of moral turpitude.
Brown also failed to comply with rule 9.20, a requirement of a suspension imposed for his failure to comply with probation conditions attached to a 2008 public reproval. The reproval was imposed for his failures to comply with court orders. Failure to comply with 9.20 is grounds for disbarment.
In recommending his disbarment, Judge Lucy Armendariz said Brown “has demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with the professional obligations and rules of court imposed on California attorneys although he has been given opportunities to do so.”
BRIAN IRVING GLICKER [#165866], 52, of Sherman Oaks was disbarred May 21, 2011, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
The State Bar Court found that Glicker committed seven counts of misconduct in two matters, including misappropriating $185,000 from a trust. In that matter, he represented a client who was the trustee for a family trust in an action against her son. As part of a settlement, the son was to pay the trust $235,000.
Glicker received a check from the son for $50,000 that he deposited in his client trust account, which had a balance of $195.64. He subsequently transferred $20,000 to his general office account and wrote a $30,000 check to a client whose case was unrelated to the trust matter.
The son later made a wire transfer of $172,850.38 to Glicker’s trust account; he transferred $50,000 to his bank account, and later made two more transfers of $20,000 and $25,000. When the son made his final payment, Glicker was holding $185,000 belonging to the trust. When he was asked to distribute the funds and provide an accounting, Glicker wrote a check against his office account, but when the son tried to cash the check, he found that Glicker had stopped payment.
Judge Donald Miles found that Glicker failed to maintain client funds in trust or account for funds and he misappropriated client funds.
In a second matter, Glicker received a $35,000 settlement check on behalf of a client and after distributing $15,809 to the client, indicated he was withholding the remainder to pay two medical liens. He made no further distributions for more than three years, but when the client threatened to complain to the bar, Glicker said he’d settled the liens and the client could come to his office to receive the remaining funds. In fact, the liens were never paid and Glicker continued to hold $3,880.60 that was still owed to the client.
Miles found that Glicker misappropriated that amount and his misrepresentations about the medical liens amounted to moral turpitude. He also failed to cooperate with the bar’s investigation of either case.
In recommending disbarment, Miles wrote that Glicker “intentionally misappropriated substantial funds from two clients. He continues to withhold those funds and has demonstrated absolutely no remorse for his conduct. Instead he continues to make up stories and arguments to seek to justify his misconduct. The protection of both the public and the profession dictate that an order of disbarment be imposed.”
COLLEEN MARIE QUINN [#87608], 58, of San J
They shortly will be adding one for Elder Abuse. Shame Shame, you getting your eyes full my cheeky deceptive little monkey?
MARK STEVEN WILLIAMS [#177754], 58, of Menlo Park was disbarred May 13, 2011, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Williams violated an earlier rule 9.20 order by failing to submit to the court an affidavit stating that he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other interested parties of his suspension. Although he filed a declaration of compliance three months late, failure to comply with the rule is grounds for disbarment.
The underlying discipline, imposed in 2008, followed misdemeanor convictions for trespassing and fleeing from a park ranger. The bar court’s review department found that neither conviction involved moral turpitude and reduced a disbarment recommendation to a suspension.
Williams, who is both a lawyer and a doctor, was disciplined again in 2010 for three acts of misconduct — he committed acts of moral turpitude by make false and misleading statements on applications for hospital privileges, did not notify the State Bar of disciplinary action taken against him by the medical board, and he failed to uphold the law. His medical license was revoked in 1999 and he was subsequently employed by a law firm, where he represented himself as a doctor, without notifying his employer that his license had been revoked.
In recommending disbarment, Judge Richard Honn wrote that Williams “has demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with the professional obligations and rules of court imposed on California attorneys although he has been given opportunities to do so.”
STEVE SEHAENG KWON [#222338], 47, of Diamond Bar was disbarred May 13, 2011, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
Kwon stipulated that he violated an earlier rule 9.20 order by failing to submit to the court an affidavit stating that he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other interested parties of his suspension. He filed a declaration of compliance about five weeks late. He also did not meet with the probation department by the required deadline.
He was disciplined in 2009 for failing to perform legal services competently and committing acts of moral turpitude, and again in 2010 for failing to comply with probation conditions.
In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar’s investigation and demonstrated remorse.
STEPHEN LEE BURNS [#113371], 60, of Burbank was disbarred May 13, 2011, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
Burns stipulated to 16 counts of misconduct in five matters, including three instances of misappropriating client funds.
In one matter, for example, he settled a personal injury case for his minor client for $15,000. He was sanctioned twice for not obeying court orders and the court ultimately dismissed the case with prejudice for Burns’ failure to prosecute. Although the court set aside the dismissal, it warned Burns that the case would be dismissed again if he failed to resolve his client’s compromise. When that did not happen, the court sanctioned Burns again and took over jurisdiction of the case.
The court issued a series of orders, but Burns did not follow through on obtaining settlement funds. He therefore never deposited any funds in an interest-bearing account for the minor’s benefit. He allowed the balance in his trust account to fall below the required amount and stipulated that he misappropriated $3,123.59. He also admitted that he failed to obey court orders, disburse client funds promptly or perform legal services competently.
Burns misappropriated $15,000 from a couple who were injured in an automobile accident, and $4,725 from another client without telling her that he’d settled her claim.
He stipulated that his misconduct “was surrounded by dishonesty, concealment and an inability to account to his clients.” Burns also was disciplined in 2005 for misconduct in five personal injury cases, most involving misusing his client trust account and/or failing to perform legal services competently.
RICHARD ALLAN WHITE [#78566], 64, of Palmdale was disbarred May 14, 2011, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
White stipulated to eight counts of misconduct in four cases, including two misappropriations totaling $20,967. He deposited the proceeds of a sale of a community residence, totaling $18,510, in his client trust account, but a levy by the California Tax Franchise Board reduced the balance to $10,829. White then wrote a check for $10,000 that he deposited in his personal bank account.
In a second matter, he misappropriated almost $2,500 he should have used to pay his client’s doctors.
He used his client trust account to pay business and personal expenses and instead of withdrawing attorney’s fees from 15 settlements, he left those fees in the account.
In mitigation, White cooperated with the bar’s investigation.
DANIEL SCOTT BROWN [#158025], 48, of Danville was disbarred May 14, 2011, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Brown practiced law while not entitled and he failed to comply with the requirements of a previous disciplinary order.
Brown was placed on inactive status in 2009 for failing to respond to disciplinary charges filed against him. He appeared in court on behalf of two clients and otherwise participated by phone when he was not entitled to practice. By holding himself out as eligible to practice, he also committed acts of moral turpitude.
Brown also failed to comply with rule 9.20, a requirement of a suspension imposed for his failure to comply with probation conditions attached to a 2008 public reproval. The reproval was imposed for his failures to comply with court orders. Failure to comply with 9.20 is grounds for disbarment.
In recommending his disbarment, Judge Lucy Armendariz said Brown “has demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with the professional obligations and rules of court imposed on California attorneys although he has been given opportunities to do so.”
BRIAN IRVING GLICKER [#165866], 52, of Sherman Oaks was disbarred May 21, 2011, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
The State Bar Court found that Glicker committed seven counts of misconduct in two matters, including misappropriating $185,000 from a trust. In that matter, he represented a client who was the trustee for a family trust in an action against her son. As part of a settlement, the son was to pay the trust $235,000.
Glicker received a check from the son for $50,000 that he deposited in his client trust account, which had a balance of $195.64. He subsequently transferred $20,000 to his general office account and wrote a $30,000 check to a client whose case was unrelated to the trust matter.
The son later made a wire transfer of $172,850.38 to Glicker’s trust account; he transferred $50,000 to his bank account, and later made two more transfers of $20,000 and $25,000. When the son made his final payment, Glicker was holding $185,000 belonging to the trust. When he was asked to distribute the funds and provide an accounting, Glicker wrote a check against his office account, but when the son tried to cash the check, he found that Glicker had stopped payment.
Judge Donald Miles found that Glicker failed to maintain client funds in trust or account for funds and he misappropriated client funds.
In a second matter, Glicker received a $35,000 settlement check on behalf of a client and after distributing $15,809 to the client, indicated he was withholding the remainder to pay two medical liens. He made no further distributions for more than three years, but when the client threatened to complain to the bar, Glicker said he’d settled the liens and the client could come to his office to receive the remaining funds. In fact, the liens were never paid and Glicker continued to hold $3,880.60 that was still owed to the client.
Miles found that Glicker misappropriated that amount and his misrepresentations about the medical liens amounted to moral turpitude. He also failed to cooperate with the bar’s investigation of either case.
In recommending disbarment, Miles wrote that Glicker “intentionally misappropriated substantial funds from two clients. He continues to withhold those funds and has demonstrated absolutely no remorse for his conduct. Instead he continues to make up stories and arguments to seek to justify his misconduct. The protection of both the public and the profession dictate that an order of disbarment be imposed.”
COLLEEN MARIE QUINN [#87608], 58, of San J
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)