Attorney licensed in the state of Arizona, has violated his client-lawyer relationship and conflict of interest

Link for opinion: http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/36/2010_Scanned/JOandOrders/CookJO8112010.pdf

In re Cook, No. SB-10-0085-D (Ariz. Aug. 8, 2010) available at http://wwwazcourts.gov/Portals/36/2010_Scanned /JOandOrders/CookJ-8112010.pdf, Robert Cook, an attorney licensed in the state of Arizona, has violated his client-lawyer relationship and conflict of interest.

The Disciplinary Commission of Arizona has reviewed six counts against Mr. Cook. It has been found that Mr. Cook in representing several clients has violated several of the Arizona Court Rules. The violations include the following: 1.1(Competence), 1.2(Scope of Representation), 1.3(Diligence), 1.4(Communication), 1.5(Fees), 1.7(Conflict of Interest), 3.1(Meritorious Claims and Contentions), 3.2(Expediting Litigation), 5.3(Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants), and 8.4(d) (Misconduct).

Several of the counts have shown that Mr. Cook has not provided competent representation in violation of ER 1.1. Mr. Cook has missed critical filing deadlines that could have harmed each of the client’s case. If he did not miss a critical deadline he would request for an extension on the deadline therefore putting a delay in the case in violation ER 3.2. Several default judgments were filed against his clients due to his lack of response or delay in response. Due to the default judgments or lack of response from Mr. Cook, some of Mr. Cook’s clients felt they needed to hire a new attorney to represent them in their legal issues.

Mr. Cook’s communication with his clients is insufficient. Mr. Cook did not send an accounting statement of his services unless the client requested it. Mr. Cook has failed to inform his clients about decisions or circumstances relating to the client’s case. This includes if the client’s objectives could or will be met which leads to violation of 1.2 and 1.4. Mr. Cook also did not notify his client’s status of their claim. While representing several clients he did not communicate with the clients the scope of representation or what rates is the responsibility of the client in violation of ER 1.5.

While on a conference call representing the debtor in a bankruptcy case, Mr. Cook offered his services to several creditors which will lead to violation in ER 1.7. Several of the creditors have accepted the offer for Mr. Cook to represent them and file a Proof of Claim for them. It has also been shown the Mr. Cook was representing a LLC and individuals who were running the LLC which could lead to a violation of the ER 1.7. Since there was comingling of money in accounts it was found that this was a conflict of interest in representing the LLC and the individuals. The issue is what money is available to which creditors, the LLC creditors or the individual creditors. A waiver has not been signed by any of the parties that could have a potential interest.

The Hearing Officer recommends that Mr. Cook shall receive censure, two year probation, and refrain from engaging conduct that would violate Rules of Professional Conduct or rules of the Supreme Court. The probation will include participating in Law Office Management Assistant Program, participating in Member Assistance Program and Continuing Legal Education in specific areas. The Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed the recommendations of the Hearing Officers.