 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Whitmer3/11/1992
JUDGMENT OF CENSURE
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 having been filed,
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:
1. CECIL PETER WHITMER, a suspended member of the State Bar of Arizona, is hereby censured for conduct in violation of his duties and obligations as a lawyer, as disclosed in the commission report attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2. Respondent shall pay to the State Bar of Arizona costs and expenses incurred in this matter in the sum of $589.92 with interest at the legal rate, within thirty days from the date hereof as provided by law.
EXHIBIT A
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA
Comm. No. 85-1368
In the Matter of CECIL PETER WHITMER, a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION REPORT
(Filed Jan. 7, 1992)
This matter came before the Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Arizona on November 16, 1991, for oral argument on the hearing committee's recommendation of acceptance of the agreement for discipline by consent providing for censure.
Decision
After consideration of the arguments of Respondent and the State Bar, the Commission, by a unanimous vote of seven aye, adopts the hearing committee's recommendation of acceptance of the agreement for discipline by consent, and orders that Respondent be censured. The Commission also unanimously adopts the committee's findings of fact and Conclusions of law.
Facts
In July 1980, the firm of Zang and Whitmer, Ltd., of which Respondent was a principal, was retained by Jesse and Marian Martin for representation in a personal injury action arising out of an automobile accident. The matter was assigned to an associate in the firm, under Respondent's supervision. Respondent instructed the associate to file a settlement demand letter with the State of Arizona, pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-821. Additionally, a civil complaint was later filed in Maricopa County Superior Court. However, that complaint
was dismissed in April 1982, as the demand letter failed to comply with A.R.S. § 12-821.
Respondent then instructed his associate to contact the Martins and to prepare and file an appellate brief. The associate did neither, and the Martins' appeal was dismissed by the Arizona Court of Appeals in March 1983.
In May 1983, Respondent wrote a letter to the Martins representing the facts as Respondent thought them to be at the time. Respondent acknowledges that, although it was not his intention, his letter may have given the Martins the wrong impression as to the status of their case.
A complaint was filed on August 11, 1988. As Respondent could not be located, the complaint was served upon the Clerk of the Supreme Court. Respondent failed to answer the complaint, which was therefore deemed admitted. The hearing committee determined that the hearing scheduled for April 5, 1989, was unnecessary, as the allegations of the complaint were deemed admitted; thus, the hearing was vacated and the committee filed its report. Respondent did not file an objection to the committee's recommended sanction until two days prior to the scheduled hearing before the Commission, when Respondent filed a Motion for Continuance and Request for Permission to File Late Objections. Respondent stated that he no lon
Page 1 2 3 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|