In re Woltman

¶1JUDGMENT AND ORDER

¶2This matter having come on for hearing before the Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Arizona, it having duly rendered its decision and no timely appeal therefrom having been filed, and the Court having declined sua sponte review,

¶3IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that BRADFORD CAREY WOLTMAN, a suspended member of the State Bar of Arizona, is hereby disbarred for conduct in violation of his duties and obligations as a lawyer, as disclosed in the commission report attached hereto as Exhibit A.

¶4IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that BRADFORD CAREY WOLTMAN shall pay restitution in the following amounts to the following individuals:

¶5Jean-Louise Joiner — $1,351.00

¶6Thomas A. Curtí — 1,600.00

¶7James A. Jackson — 500.00

¶8Linda S. Douglass — 3,500.00

¶9Kristie Sue Williams — 1,500.00

¶10Linda Liles — 1,500.00

¶11Andrew Winston — 3,800.00

¶12Richard F. Deluca — 1,200.00

¶13Citizens-Jackson County Bank — 500.00

¶14Sigmund S. Witkowski — 2,500.00

¶15Connie R. Jamison — 300.00

¶16IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall comply with all applicable provisions of Rule 63, Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona, and shall promptly inform this Court of his compliance with this Order as provided by Rule 63(d), Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona.

¶17IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BRADFORD CAREY WOLTMAN shall be assessed the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $3,899.55.

¶18*549EXHIBIT A

¶19BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION OF THE

¶20SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA

¶21In the Matter of BRADFORD C. WOLTMAN, a Suspended Member of the State Bar of Arizona, RESPONDENT.

¶22Comm. Nos. 90-2379, 91-1005, 91-1009, 91-1104, 91-1190, 91-1473, 91-1670, 91-1927, 91-1928, 91-2238, 91-2239, 91-2253, 92-0055, 92-0155, 92-0307, 92-0617, 92-0746, 92-0852, 92-0885, 92-0936, 92-0960, 92-1046, 92-1229, 92-1341, 92-1484.

¶23DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION REPORT

¶24[Filed Feb. 4, 1994.].

¶25This matter came before the Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Arizona on December 11, 1993, for review of the record on appeal, pursuant to Rule 53(d), Ariz.R.S.Ct. The Commission considered the Hearing Officer’s recommendation of disbarment and restitution. No objections to the Hearing Officer’s recommendation were filed.

¶26Decision

¶27By a concurrence of the eight members present,1 the Commission adopts the recommendation of the Hearing Officer that the respondent, Bradford C. Woltman (‘Woltman”), be disbarred, and that he make restitution totalling $18,251.00 to eleven of his clients, as detailed below. The Commission also unanimously adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Hearing Officer.

¶28Facts

¶29The complaint in this matter is eighteen pages long, and contains twenty-five counts alleging misconduct in connection with twenty-four separate client matters. The allegations include conversion of funds, failure to perform work for which he was retained and for which he accepted retainers, failure to pursue the clients’ cases with diligence and competence, failure to maintain communication with clients, misrepresentation to clients concerning the status of their case, and failure to return client files and property. The complaint also alleges that Woltman practiced law after being placed on interim suspension, threatened adverse parties with physical violence, failed to remit money received on the clients’ behalf, and allowed clients’ cases to be dismissed or delayed.

¶30The Hearing Officer found that Woltman’s conduct violated ER 1.1, ER 1.2, ER 1.3, ER 1.4, ER 1.5, ER 1.15, ER 1.16, ER 3.2, ER 3.3, ER 3.4, ER 4.2, ER 4.4, ER 5.5, ER 8.1, ER 8.4, and Supreme Court Rules 41(g), 51(e), (f), (h), and (i), and 63.

¶31Procedural History

¶32After Woltman was personally served with the formal complaint, he failed to participate in this matter. As he failed to respond to the formal complaint, the complaint was deemed admitted, pursuant to Rule 53(c)(1). Woltman was notified of his right to be heard in mitigation and, again, failed to respond. Woltman was notified of the opportunity to object to the Hearing Officer’s report and to file a statement on review before the Commission. Woltman did not object to the Hearing Officer’s report, did not file a statement on review, and did not request oral argument before the Commission.

¶33Discussion of Decision

¶34The Commission agrees with the Hearing Officer that Woltman’s conduct violated all of the ethical rules charged in the complaint.

¶35The American Bar Association’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions are used by the Court in considering the appropriate sanction for a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In re Ockrassa, 165 Ariz. 576, 799 P.2d 1350 (1990). In this matter, Woltman’s conduct was so egregious that virtually every standard is applicable. Only a few need be included here to demonstrate the appropriateness of the Commission’s recommendation.

¶36Woltman converted client funds in two separate matters. In Count One, while working *550with a national charity’s telethon in 1992, Woltman deposited telethon funds into his own account. Despite the charity’s repeated requests for reimbursement of the $1,351 in missing funds, Woltman has not since communicated with, nor reimbursed, the charity. In Count Nineteen, Woltman negotiated a judgment with a debtor on behalf of his creditor client. The judgment called for the debtor to make monthly $500 payments to the client through Woltman. At least one payment was made. However, Woltman never delivered any payments, which totalled at least $500, to the client. As the Hearing Officer notes, both Standards 4.11 and 5.11 indicate that, for this violation alone, disbarment is warranted.2

¶37The Theoretical Framework to the Standards indicates that multiple acts of misconduct warrant a more severe sanction.

The ultimate sanction imposed should at least be consistent with the sanction for the most serious instance of misconduct among a number of violations; it might be and generally should be greater than the sanction for the most serious misconduct.

¶38Standards, p. 6. In this instance, while the misappropriation of funds accounts for the conduct found in two counts of the complaint, there are twenty-three additional counts detailing Woltman’s lack of diligence, lack of competence, lack of communication with clients, misrepresentations, threats, and failure to return client property.

¶39Standard 9.22, which lists factors to be considered in aggravation, includes multiple offenses and a pattern of misconduct as just two of the aggravating factors to be considered in determining the appropriate sanction. Also present in this matter are dishonest or selfish motive, failure to cooperate with or participate in the disciplinary process, vulnerability of the victims, and indifference to making restitution. No factors in mitigation were found.

¶40The Commission agrees with the Hearing Officer that Woltman should not be practicing law. The past and potential serious harm to his clients is clear. The Commission recommends that Woltman be disbarred, and that he make restitution as follows:3

¶41Client in Count One — $1,351.00

¶42Client in Count Two — $1,600.00

¶43Client in Count Three — $ 500.00

¶44Client in Count Six — $3,500.00

¶45Client in Count Seven — $1,500.00

¶46Client in Count Nine — $1,500.00

¶47Client in Count Sixteen — $3,800.00

¶48Client in Count Eighteen — $1,200.00

¶49Client in Count Nineteen — $ 500.00

¶50Client in Count Twenty — $2,500.00

¶51Client in Count Twenty-Three — $ 300.00

¶52RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 4th day of February, 1994.

¶53/a/ Steven L. Bosse’

¶54Steven L. Bosse’, Chair

¶55Disciplinary Commission