District of Columbia: Lawyer Violates Rules of Professional Conduct

In re Stillwell, 980 A.2d 430 (D.C.2009), the District of Columbia Court suspended Garland H. Stillwell for sixty days, with no requirement of indicating the ability to practice law prior to reinstatement, after multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Stillwell admits to violating the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rules 8.4 (c) and 1.7 (b)(1). The acts of violating these specified rules included inaccurate representation of status at a law firm, false representation, improper charges of personal expenses upon others, working outside the law firm where he was employed and of which the company prohibited, and he took a position on behalf of clients that was unfavorable to a position taken by a client of his firm without consent of all of the parties.
The Hearing Committee Number Eleven of the Board on Professional Responsibility received the facts in the petition, in addition to Stillwell’s own affidavit, and admittance that he did in fact violate the Rules 8.4 (c) and 1.7 (b)(1). Stillwell also made a point to state that he was not coerced into the agreement with the Bar Counsel. He acknowledged that he would have to comply with the requirements put in place by the D.C. Bar R. XI, §14, and Board Rule 9.9. The Committee’s decision was for Stillwell to be suspended from practicing law for sixty days, with no additional requirements prior to reinstatement.

Minnesota: Lawyer Publicly Reprimanded and Placed on Probation for Receiving Advance Payments With No Written Fee Agreement

In In re Eichhorn-Hicks, 767 N.W.2d 20 (Minn. 2009), the Minnesota Supreme Court publicly reprimanded and placed an attorney on probation for two years for receiving advance fee payments on two occasions in a client matter in which there was no written fee agreement signed by the client. The lawyer also did not deposit the funds into a trust account and during the investigation failed to disclose the full amount of payments received for representation of a client. These actions violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(b), 1.15(c)(5), and 8.1(b).
The Minnesota Supreme Court accepted the recommended disposition of Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility with terms that include lawyer’s avoidance of these violations in the future and cooperation with authorities releasing personal and compliance information.
Compelled by Rule 1.5(b), a lawyer must communicate ““the scope of the representation and the basis or rate of the fee and expenses for which the client will be responsible…”. Additionally, Rule 1.15(c)(5) states that “unless the lawyer and the client have entered into a written agreement” a lawyer must ”deposit all fees in advance of the legal services being performed into a trust account … “. In violation of Rule 8.1(b) the lawyer also failed “to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter…”.