Income Understated

A reprimand and a year of probation by consent has been accepted by the Arizona Presiding Disciplinary Judge

The Agreement describes the factual background for the ethical violations, which is not repeated herein. The parties agree that Ms. Gillis negligently submitted an affidavit of financial information for a family court client that significantly understated the client’s income by omitting wages she received from her work as Ms. Gillis’s paralegal. Ms. Gillis failed to take remedial action for an extended period of time, despite being notified of the financial discrepancy by opposing counsel.

Negligence

The following aggravating factors apply: prior disciplinary offense; pattern of misconduct; and substantial experience in the practice of law. The following mitigating factors apply: personal or emotional problems; remorse; and remoteness of prior offense.

Because the parties agree that Ms. Gillis’s conduct was negligent versus intentional, the PDJ will accept the negotiated agreement. It is disturbing, though, that Ms. Gillis ignored not only the inaccurate AFI and Court Appointed Advisor Report, but also failed to take action when opposing counsel pressed her about the accuracy of her client’s financial claims. If intentional conduct could be proven, a harsher sanction would clearly be warranted. 

Respondent had filed an affidavit on behalf of her client that stated that she was a stay-at-home mother whose income came from the opposing party.

Opposing counsel learned the client was Respondent’s paralegal through social media.

Respondent noted that her father had passed away shorthly before the document was filed. (Mike Frisch)