 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Matter of Lenaburg12/13/1993
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 having been filed before the Court,
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that HARRY J. LENABURG, a 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.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 52(a)(8), Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona, the State Bar of Arizona is granted judgment against HARRY J. LENABURG for costs incurred by the State Bar of Arizona in the amount of $837.56, together with interest at the legal rate from the date of this judgment.
DATED this 13th day of December, 1993.
EXHIBIT "A"
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA
In the Matter of
HARRY J. LENABURG,
a Member of the State
Bar of Arizona,
RESPONDENT.
Comm. Nos. 90-0534, 90-0895, 91-1130 and 91-0542
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION REPORT
This matter first came before the Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Arizona on June 5, 1993, pursuant to Ariz. R. Sup. Ct., Rule 56(a), for review of the Hearing Committee's recommendation of acceptance of the agreement for discipline by consent providing for censure and probation. The Commission, by order filed July 26, 1993, rejected that recommendation and remanded the matter to the Hearing Committee for a hearing. On August 3, 1993, the State Bar filed a motion for reconsideration and request for oral argument. This matter again came before the Commission on September 11, 1993, for oral argument on the State Bar's motion.
Motion for Reconsideration
After hearing oral argument of the State Bar and Respondent, a concurrence of the seven Commissioners present granted the State Bar's motion to reconsider.
Decision on the Merits
A concurrence of the seven Commissioners present accepts the Hearing Committee's recommendation that the agreement for discipline, providing for censure and a two-year probation, be accepted. The Commission unanimously adopts the Conclusions of law of the Hearing Committee and adopts the tender of admissions and agreement for discipline by consent as its findings of fact.
Facts
The complaint in this matter contains four counts, all of which concern Respondent's failure to uphold his responsibilities as the managing attorney for a law firm (the "Firm"). Respondent became the managing attorney in June 1988.
Mr. and Mrs. A retained the Firm in November 1986 to defend them in a lawsuit with a remodeling company. These clients also wanted to file a counterclaim against the remodeling company. Mr. and Mrs. A stressed that time was of the essence in handling this matter, because insolvency of the remodeling company was probable. Over the next three and a half years, Mr. and Mrs. A wrote a number of letters to the Firm, complaining about the delay, stating that their case had been handed to six different attorneys over this time period.
Respondent was given copies of these letters from Mr. and Mrs. A when he became managing attorney. However, Respondent did not contact the couple to attempt to resolve the problems they were having, and did not adequately supervise the associates handling the case to ensure they were complying with their ethical obligations
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|