 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Matter of Kobashi3/8/1994
both of which led him to conclude that suspension is the appropriate sanction. The Commission agrees with this analysis.
Standard 4.42 provides for suspension when a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes injury or potential injury to a client. In this instance, Respondent was retained specifically to obtain financial compensation for the client. Not only did Respondent fail to do so, but he failed to file a lawsuit before the expiration of the statute of limitations, thereby, apparently, precluding any future recompense for the client.
In a similar case, In re Mulhall, 159 Ariz. 528, 768 P.2d 1173 (1989), the respondent was censured for allowing the statute of limitations to run before filing the client's personal injury claim, and then failing to so inform the client. Although the underlying conduct is quite similar, Respondent Mulhall's subsequent conduct differs dramatically from that of Respondent. In this matter, Respondent never communicated with his client after failing to file suit, apparently made no effort to make his client whole, and did not participate in the disciplinary proceedings. In contrast, Respondent Mulhall not only paid his client what was considered a more than fair amount for the claim he failed to file, but he was also very cooperative and candid throughout the disciplinary proceedings. It is these subsequent actions which lead the Hearing Officer and the Commission to conclude that a more severe sanction is warranted here.
The Hearing Officer recommended that Respondent be suspended for six months and one day. Obviously, this recommendation was intended to ensure that Respondent's reinstatement would progress pursuant to Rule 71(h). This rule provides that reinstatement from a suspension of more than six months requires that the respondent demonstrate proof of rehabilitation. In addition to the underlying misconduct, Respondent violated his duty to uphold the self-regulation that is vital to the success of the disciplinary system. The Commission agrees that such conduct indicates that proof of rehabilitation should be required for reinstatement.
Upon consideration of the ABA Standards, Respondent's lack of respect for the disciplinary process, and a comparison of the conduct and sanction imposed in Mulhall, the Commission agrees with the Hearing Officer and recommends that Respondent be suspended for a period of six months and one day.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 3rd day of December, 1993.
Steven L. Bosse', Chairman
Disciplinary Commission
Copies of the foregoing were mailed this 6th day of December, 1993, to:
John Kobashi, Respondent
1406 North Second Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-1606
and
2912 West Flynn
Phoenix, Arizona 85017
Judy L. Lindemuth, Bar Counsel
2800 North Central Avenue, Suite 1800
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-1049
Leonard W. Copple
Hearing Officer 9M
2070 East Southern, Suite A
Tempe, Arizona 85282
ROSEMARY B. MARTIN
Disciplinary Clerk
By: E. A. Deering
Commission Secretary
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.
|
|