INTRODUCTION Mr. Daniel Ittall is an attorney with a strong reputation for being a dedicated and reliable worker. Recently, he was served a petition detailing his charges of professional misconduct. After receiving $1,000 from a potential client, not giving it back when she asked for it resulting in her losing her chance to pursue the case, Mr. Ittall is charged with violating Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, and 8.4. After failing to distribute $5,000 to his client’s trust account after a real estate deal, Mr. Ittall is charged with violating Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, and 8.4. After receiving $5,000 to take on a client’s criminal appeal and not doing so, Mr. Ittall is charged with violating Rules of Professional
…show more content…
Ittall’s first violation occurred in November 2015. After he accepted $1,000 from a possible client, Mr. Ittall did not help the client with anything and when she asked for her money back, he did not respond. As a result of this, the client could not pursue her case. Because of this, Mr. Ittall is charged with violating Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, and 8.4. Rule 1.3 states that a lawyer needs to act diligently and quickly while representing a client, should not abandon a legal matter from a client, and should not fail to carry out a client’s case. Rule 1.4 says that a lawyer must communicate and inform a client of matters of the case and make sure they are aware of everything going on. Rule 1.15 has many sections, but relevant to this violation, a lawyer needs to promptly pay their clients back the money they are entitled to receive. Lastly, Rule 8.4 declares a lawyer should not violate the rules or engage in any dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation. In Matter of Johnson, the respondent did not keep proper financial records, mixed clients’ funds, and didn’t return clients’ money. The committee showed leniency because the respondent was addicted to drugs, admitted he had a problem, and was seeking help from an expert. He would be allowed to reapply after paying back clients and remaining drug free. Like the respondent in this case, Mr. Ittall is doing the same. As his psychiatrist, Dr. Jones, can attest, Mr. Ittall has been clean for 2 years …show more content…
Ittall was charged with violating Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, and 8.4 when he put a client’s real estate money into his trust account and failed to distribute the $5,000 to his client. In this case, 1.15 refers to Section A, which states that lawyers should not put client’s funds with their own personal accounts. In Matter of Madsen, the respondent was addicted to drugs and alcohol while she combined and changed clients’ funds. The committee was sympathetic because the respondent recognized she had an addiction problem and no client endured financial loss. In Mr. Ittall’s situation, he has begun to repay his clients. One of his clients, A’Lotta Land, confirms that he is almost done giving her back her money. Ms. Land also says that he is paying back all his clients. Mr. Ittall knows that his addiction has caused people a lot of hardship, but he is fully committed to giving every single client their money
Ittall’s first violation occurred in November 2015. After he accepted $1,000 from a possible client, Mr. Ittall did not help the client with anything and when she asked for her money back, he did not respond. As a result of this, the client could not pursue her case. Because of this, Mr. Ittall is charged with violating Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, and 8.4. Rule 1.3 states that a lawyer needs to act diligently and quickly while representing a client, should not abandon a legal matter from a client, and should not fail to carry out a client’s case. Rule 1.4 says that a lawyer must communicate and inform a client of matters of the case and make sure they are aware of everything going on. Rule 1.15 has many sections, but relevant to this violation, a lawyer needs to promptly pay their clients back the money they are entitled to receive. Lastly, Rule 8.4 declares a lawyer should not violate the rules or engage in any dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation. In Matter of Johnson, the respondent did not keep proper financial records, mixed clients’ funds, and didn’t return clients’ money. The committee showed leniency because the respondent was addicted to drugs, admitted he had a problem, and was seeking help from an expert. He would be allowed to reapply after paying back clients and remaining drug free. Like the respondent in this case, Mr. Ittall is doing the same. As his psychiatrist, Dr. Jones, can attest, Mr. Ittall has been clean for 2 years …show more content…
Ittall was charged with violating Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, and 8.4 when he put a client’s real estate money into his trust account and failed to distribute the $5,000 to his client. In this case, 1.15 refers to Section A, which states that lawyers should not put client’s funds with their own personal accounts. In Matter of Madsen, the respondent was addicted to drugs and alcohol while she combined and changed clients’ funds. The committee was sympathetic because the respondent recognized she had an addiction problem and no client endured financial loss. In Mr. Ittall’s situation, he has begun to repay his clients. One of his clients, A’Lotta Land, confirms that he is almost done giving her back her money. Ms. Land also says that he is paying back all his clients. Mr. Ittall knows that his addiction has caused people a lot of hardship, but he is fully committed to giving every single client their money