LAWYER DISCIPLINE
Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota, Petitioner, v. Wade G. Enget, Respondent
No. 20160139
A hearing panel of the Disciplinary Board recommended Wade G. Enget be suspended from the practice of law in North Dakota for 30 days with a six-month probation following his suspension and recommended he pay costs of the disciplinary proceeding for violations.
Following a hearing, a hearing panel found Enget was hired by a client regarding the estate of her husband. She was appointed personal representative and formal probate was commenced in 2003. The client received no communication from Enget in 2005, 2006, or 2008. She received limited communication in 2007. One of the husband’ s three sons met with Enget in November 2009, and an heirs agreement was created. The client refused the agreement when the son reviewed it with her. Enget testified he did not contact the client regarding the agreement. In February 2010, Enget received a letter from the son’ s attorney concerning failings in the husband’ s probate. Enget forwarded the email to the client, who responded. The client then retained other counsel for her personal rights. The client resigned as personal representative, and Enget withdrew as counsel for the personal representative. By this point, the time to file an inventory and close the estate had expired.
The hearing panel concluded Enget violated N. D. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3 and N. D. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4 and recommended the sanction of suspension from the practice of law in North Dakota for 30 days with a six-month probation following his suspension. In recommending the sanction, the hearing panel concluded N. D. Stds. Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 4.42 and 7.2 applied. The Supreme Court disagreed that Sanction 7.2 applied. However, the Court agreed with the recommended sanction because a 30-day suspension is warranted under either provision. The Supreme Court suspended Enget from the practice of law in North Dakota for 30 days with a six-month probation following his suspension, effective July 1, 2016. The Supreme Court ordered him to pay $ 7,114.57 in costs and expenses for the disciplinary proceeding and ordered him to comply with N. D. R. Lawyer Discipl. 6.3 and 4.5.
Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota, Petitioner, v. Michael Ward, Respondent
No. 20150337
The Disciplinary Board recommended that Michael Ward be suspended from the practice of law for two months and pay the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceeding for violating N. D. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1( competence), N. D. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3( diligence), N. D. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4( communication), and N. D. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16( e)( terminating representation).
The Board found that Robert and Kelly Stigen paid Ward $ 1,500 to secure a Chapter 7 discharge in bankruptcy. After the meeting of creditors, the Stigens and Ward learned the bankruptcy trustee wanted an appraisal of a snowmobile and the Stigens to file their tax returns, which indicated they would receive a refund. During the next four months, the trustee sent eight letters to Ward and called him with questions about the unfiled tax returns and the snowmobile appraisal. Ward did not forward the letters to the Stigens and ceased contact with the trustee, even though the trustee threatened an adversary action against the Stigens. The trustee eventually filed an adversary complaint to deny the bankruptcy for failing to provide the trustee with the tax refunds and the snowmobile appraisal. Upon being served, the Stigens unsuccessfully attempted to contact Ward, so they hired a different attorney to answer the complaint. The new attorney asked Ward for the Stigens’ file, but Ward did not provide a complete copy of the file. The new attorney negotiated a settlement agreement and the adversary proceeding was dismissed. After commencement of the disciplinary proceedings, seven months after Ward’ s termination of representation, Ward returned the $ 1,500 flat fee to the Stigens.
For violation of these rules of professional conduct, the Board recommended Ward be suspended from the practice of law for two months and pay $ 8,284.78 for the costs and expenses of the proceeding. The Supreme Court found clear and convincing evidence Ward violated N. D. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, N. D. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4, and N. D. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16( e). The Court found there was not clear and convincing evidence Ward violated N. D. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1. Ward was suspended from the practice of law for two months commencing July 1, and ordered to pay $ 8,284.78 for the costs and expenses of the proceeding.
38 THE GAVEL