Noted, Not Ignored, Rejected: The Limits Of Bar Sanctions
The Arizona Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved an agreement to impose a suspension of six months and a day
The misconduct is briefly summarized. Mr. Crane represented clients in personal injury and civil litigation. In multiple matters, he failed to adequately communicate with clients and diligently represent them. Specifically, Mr. Crane failed to draft or file a lawsuit on behalf of clients and misrepresented the status of the matters to clients. He made false statements to other clients and opposing counsel to cover up his lack of diligence and deleted critical emails from clients and the Court. His lack of diligence caused one matter to be dismissed and the statute of limitations to run in another matter. In a separate matter, he failed to convey a settlement offer and allowed the acceptance deadline to expire.
Mr. Crane further falsified financial documents as part of his loan rehabilitation packet when seeking aid regarding his student loans. Specifically, he provided false information regarding his monthly income in violation of the U.S. Criminal Code and 20 U.S.C 1097. In addition, he presented a false resume to multiple employers which contained inconsistencies and omissions.
An aggrieved complainant had objected
Under Rule 53(b)(3), notice and an opportunity to object was provided to the Complainant(s) by letter and email on February 11, 2019. One objection was filed on February 19, 2019 stating that disbarment is a more appropriate sanction based on the harm that occurred in his case, and that compensation is appropriate for his injuries, loss of career, pain and suffering, and the wrongful death of his wife.
In considering this agreement the PDJ has noted, considered, and not ignored the objection. It has merit. Notwithstanding, the Court has held that consequences such as monetary damages and restitution are best left to civil courts. Restitution through the attorney discipline system should not be a substitute for a malpractice action. Matter of Murphy, 188 Ariz. 375, 936 P.2d 1269 (1997). However, nothing within this ruling is a comment on whether monetary damages should be awarded to Complainant(s). Such awards are not available in disciplinary proceedings and clients may seek redress in the form of a malpractice claim or civil lawsuit.
In an unrelated matter, an unhappy complainant got the same response in a matter involving a stipulated eighteen month suspension for neglect and false statements
Under Rule 53(b)(3), notice and an opportunity to object was emailed to the complainant(s) on February 22, 2019. An objection was filed on March 4, 2019 requesting restitution. Complainant(s) state restitution is appropriate in this matter as they and their minor son has experienced irreparable harm including an unreasonable contingency fee, poor work by Respondent, and at times during the representation, client abandonment.
In considering this agreement the PDJ has noted, considered, and not ignored the objection. It has merit. Case law is clear on this point. Consequences such as monetary damages and restitution are best left to civil courts. Restitution through the attorney discipline system should not be a substitute for a malpractice action. Matter of Murphy, 188 Ariz. 375, 936 P.2d 1269 (1997). Nothing within this ruling is a comment on whether monetary damages should be awarded to Complainant. Such award is simply not available in a disciplinary proceeding.
The agreement’s consequence
The conduct of Respondent is troubling. However, such agreements bring certainty where there is seen and unforeseen uncertainty in aspects of evidence, testimony, and persuasive force. This Agreement brings certainty, assures an independent evaluation, and requires Respondent to prove to a hearing panel clearly and convincingly that Respondent should be permitted to return to the practice of law.
(Mike Frisch)