BAR COMMUNITY

lawyer regulation
financial statement
people
BAR COMMUNITY
LAWYER REGULATION
REINSTATED ATTORNEYS
DANIEL P. BEEKS
Bar No. 012628
PDJ No. 2013-9108
Sup. Ct. No. SB-14-0020-R
On May 28, 2014, the Arizona
Supreme Court ordered that
Daniel P. Beeks, Phoenix, be reinstated to the practice of law effective on that date. Mr. Beeks was
placed on probation for one year
and ordered to undergo an assessment by the State Bar’s Member
Assistance Program and to enter
into a contract based upon the recommendations made by the MAP
director or designee.
CHRISTOPHER SCILEPPI
Bar No. 021591; File No. 13-1001-R
PDJ No. 2014-9042
By Arizona Supreme Court order
dated June 5, 2014, Christopher
54
A R I Z O N A AT T O R N E Y S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 4
L. Scileppi, Tucson, was reinstated
as an active State Bar member, and
placed on probation for six
months, effective June 4, 2014.
SANCTIONED ATTORNEYS
WILLIAM L. CLEMMENS
Bar No. 003653; File Nos. 12-1912,
13-0574
PDJ No. 2014-9001
By the acting presiding disciplinary
judge’s May 30, 2014, judgment
and order, William L. Clemmens,
Miami, Ariz., was suspended for
four months, effective June 15,
2014. He also was assessed the
costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceeding. Upon reinstatement, Mr. Clemmens will be
placed on probation for one year.
The sanction was entered after
approval of the consent agreement
filed by the parties.
In count 1, Mr. Clemmens
failed to comply with a diversion
order entered in State Bar file
number 12-1912, requiring him
to participate in fee arbitration
with his client. When the State Bar
attempted to investigate his failure
to participate, he did not timely
comply with requests for information.
In count 2, Mr. Clemmens
failed to provide competent representation in litigating a claim concerning the sale of a home. He also
failed to reasonably communicate
with his client, abandoned the
client without notice, failed to
promptly provide a refund, and
failed to promptly respond to the
State Bar’s investigation.
Aggravating factors: Prior disciplinary offenses, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, bad-
faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding, and substantial
experience in the practice of law.
Mr. Clemmens violated Rule
42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., specifically ERs
1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 3.2, 8.1(b) and
8.4(d),
and
Rule
54(e),
ARIZ.R.S.CT.
ROBERT F. HUGHES
Bar No. 003209; File No. 13-0351-N
PDJ No. 2014-9043
By the presiding disciplinary
judge’s June 16, 2014, judgment
and order, Robert F. Hughes,
Phoenix, was suspended for six
months and one day effective
immediately. If reinstated, Mr.
Hughes shall be placed on probation on terms to be determined at
his reinstatement hearing.
Mr. Hughes entered into a
diversion agreement with the State
w w w . a z b a r. o r g / A Z A t t o r n e y
LAWYER REGULATION
Bar in April 2012. He failed to comply with the
terms and conditions of that agreement so the
Attorney Discipline Probable Cause Committee
issued an order of admonition and probation in
November 2013. The terms of probation
required Mr. Hughes to comply with his diversion agreement. Once again Mr. Hughes failed
to comply with his diversion terms. In addition,
in February 2014 Mr. Hughes was summarily
suspended for failing to comply with mandatory CLE requirements. The State Bar instituted
probation-violation proceedings pursuant to
Rule 60(a)(5)(C), ARIZ.R.S.CT. Mr. Hughes
did not appear for the June 16, 2014, hearing.
CHARLES MAXWELL
Bar No. 009763; File No. 11-1695
PDJ No. 2012-9112
Sup. Ct. No. SB-14-0004-AP
On July 19, 2013, a disciplinary hearing panel
reprimanded Charles Maxwell, Mesa, and
assessed him the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceeding. Mr. Maxwell appealed from
that decision. On May 28, 2014, the Arizona
Supreme Court affirmed the hearing panel’s
decision and sanction.
During oral argument before the Maricopa
County Superior Court, Mr. Maxwell knowingly made a false representation to the court that
there was no legislative history regarding A.R.S.
§ 33-1807(B)(2), when in fact significant legislative history directly affected the legal argument he was making. He never acknowledged
the legislative history regarding A.R.S. § 331807(B)(2) and he failed to correct his misrepresentation, even after opposing counsel
referred the trial court to the applicable legislative history.
Aggravating factors: refusal to acknowledge
wrongful nature of misconduct and substantial
experience in the practice of law.
Mitigating factors: absence of a prior disciplinary record, absence of a selfish or dishonest
motive, timely good-faith effort to make restitution or to rectify consequences of misconduct, full and free disclosure to disciplinary
board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings, and imposition of other penalties or sanctions.
Mr.
Maxwell
violated
Rule
42,
ARIZ.R.S.CT., specifically ERs 3.3(a)(1) and
8.4(c).
attend no fewer than six hours of continuing
legal education in addition to his annual
requirements. Mr. Meschkow also must pay the
State Bar’s costs and expenses of $1,236.30.
In count one, Mr. Meschkow charged his
client an unreasonable fee for services rendered,
failed to provide the client with a writing setting
forth the terms of the representation, unilaterally changed the billing rate without notice,
engaged in harassing or unnecessarily burdensome litigation tactics and failed to promptly
return the client’s file.
Aggravating factors: selfish motive and substantial experience in the practice of law.
Mitigating factors: absence of prior disciplinary record, personal or emotional problems,
full and free disclosure to disciplinary board,
and delay in disciplinary proceedings.
Mr. Meschkow was found to have violated
Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., specifically ERs 1.5,
1.16, 3.1, 4.4 and 8.4(d).
Saper also refunded money to his client, agreed
to use a State Bar-approved fee agreement, and
has notified a debt-collection agency that his dispute with his client has been resolved.
Mr. Saper represented a client in matter
involving grandparental rights. Mr. Saper failed
to tell the client’s fiancée that she should retain
her own counsel before deciding not to appear
at her deposition. In addition, Mr. Saper advised
the client’s fiancée that he would pay the $750
sanction but he did not take steps to do so, causing her to hire a lawyer. Mr. Saper agreed to
refund some of the client’s paid fees because Mr.
Saper’s mistakes caused the additional work.
Aggravating factors: prior disciplinary record
and substantial experience in the practice of law.
Mitigating factors: full and free disclosure
and cooperative attitude toward disciplinary
proceedings, character and reputation, and
remoteness of prior offenses.
Mr. Saper violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT.,
specifically ERs 4.3 and 8.4(d), ARIZ.R.S.CT.
JANE O. ROSS
Bar No. 021999; File Nos. 13-2030, 13-2733
PDJ No. No. 2014-9017
By judgment and order of the presiding disciplinary judge dated June 17, 2014, Jane O.
Ross was disbarred, effective immediately. She
also was assessed the costs and expenses of the
disciplinary proceeding.
Ross chose not to defend the State Bar’s formal complaint and instead filed a
“Motion/Request
for
Removal
from
Membership and/or Request/Consent for
Disbarment.” The two-count complaint alleged
Ross engaged in the unauthorized practice
while suspended and that she failed to inform
one of her clients of her disciplinary suspension.
The State Bar alleged that Ms. Ross violated
Rule 42, specifically ER 5.5, and Rule 72,
ARIZ.R.S.CT.
RONALD A. SAPER
Bar No. 003288; File No. 12-2241
PDJ File No. 2014-9004
By a May 19, 2014, order of the presiding
ciplinary judge, Ronald A. Saper, Phoenix,
reprimanded and ordered to pay the costs
expenses of the disciplinary proceeding.
diswas
and
Mr.
JEANNE M. ZINGSHEIM
Bar No. 022778; File No. 13-2419
PDJ No. 2014-9020
By judgment and order filed June 13, 2014,
Jeanne M. Zingsheim, Phoenix, was suspended
for six months and one day, effective May 7,
2014. Ms. Zingsheim also was ordered to obtain
a Member Assistance Program assessment before
filing an application for reinstatement. If reinstated, she must complete two years of probation. Ms. Zingsheim also was ordered to pay
costs and expenses of $2,069.03.
In count one, Ms. Zingsheim failed to comply with her client’s directions and authority,
failed to diligently represent her client and failed
to respond timely to the lawful requests of the
State Bar for information during a disciplinary
investigation.
Aggravating factors: a pattern of misconduct
and bad-faith obstruction of the disciplinary
proceedings by intentionally failing to comply
with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency
and no mitigating factors.
Ms. Zingsheim violated Rule 42,
ARIZ.R.S.CT., specifically ERs 1.2, 1.3, and 8.1,
and Rule 54(d), ARIZ.R.S.CT.
CAUTION! Nearly 17,000 attorneys are eligible to practice law in Arizona. Many attorneys share the same
names. All discipline reports should be read carefully for names, addresses and Bar numbers.
JORDAN M. MESCHKOW
Bar No. 007454; File No. 12-3144
PDJ No. 2014-9032
By order dated June 13, 2014, the presiding
disciplinary judge accepted an agreement for
discipline by consent by which Jordan M.
Meschkow, Mesa, was reprimanded and placed
on supervised probation for two years. Mr.
Meschkow must participate in the State Bar’s
Law Office Management Assistance Program
and Member Assistance Program and also must
56
A R I Z O N A AT T O R N E Y S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 4
w w w . a z b a r. o r g / A Z A t t o r n e y

Download Report