 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Matter of Kobashi3/8/1994
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
This matter having come on for hearing before the Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Arizona, it having duly rendered its decision and no timely appeal therefrom having been filed, and the Court having declined sua sponte review,
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that JOHN KOBASHI, a suspended member of the State Bar of Arizona, is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months and one day for conduct in violation of his duties and obligations as a lawyer, as disclosed in the commission report attached hereto as Exhibit A.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall comply with all applicable provisions of Rule 63, Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona, and shall promptly inform this Court of his compliance with this Order as provided by Rule 63(d), Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that JOHN KOBASHI shall pay the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $312.70.
DATED this 8th day of March, 1994.
EXHIBIT A
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA
In the Matter of
JOHN KOBASHI,
a Suspended Member of the
State Bar of Arizona,
RESPONDENT.
Comm. No. 91-1721
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION REPORT
This matter came before the Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Arizona on October 16, 1993, for review of the record on appeal, pursuant to Rule 53(d), R. Ariz. Sup. Ct. The Commission considered the Hearing Officer's recommendation of suspension. No objections to the Hearing Officer's recommendation were filed.
Decision
By a concurrence of the eight Commissioners present, the Commission adopts the recommendation of the Hearing Officer that Respondent be suspended for a period of six months and one day. The Commission also unanimously adopts the Hearing Officer's findings of fact and Conclusions of law.
Facts
The complaint in this matter details Respondent's failure to diligently pursue and handle a client's case. Respondent was retained to obtain financial compensation for the client, who had been injured in an automobile accident. Although he accepted representation, Respondent failed to file a lawsuit on behalf of the client prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, and obtained no financial compensation. Respondent also failed to respond to the client's requests for information, and failed to return personal documents which belonged to the client.
Respondent has not participated in these disciplinary proceedings. The formal complaint was filed on April 30, 1993, and personally served upon Respondent on May 1, 1993. Respondent failed to respond to the complaint, which was deemed admitted. Respondent was notified of his right to be heard in mitigation and, again, failed to respond. Respondent was notified of the opportunity to object to the Hearing Officer's report and to file a statement on review before the Commission. Respondent did not object, did not file a statement on review, and did not request oral argument before the Commission.
Discussion of Decision
The Commission agrees with the Hearing Officer that Respondent's conduct was in violation of ER 1.1, ER 1.3, ER 1.4(a), ER 8.1(b), and Supreme Court Rule 51(h) and (i).
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Hearing Officer considered the American Bar Association's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions and prior decisions of the Court,
Page 1 2 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|