In re Black
This text of 518 P.2d 270 (In re Black) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Following hearing before the Board of Commissioners of the Idaho State Bar sitting as a Disciplinary Committee, the board entered its findings of fact, conclusions and recommendatory order concerning Richard R. Black, an attorney residing and practicing in Pocatello, Idaho. The Board recommended that he be suspended from practice of law in this state for a period of twenty-four months and be required to pay costs of the proceedings.
The board entered its findings concerning three counts of the charges filed against him. On the first count the board found Black had failed to answer or respond to a client’s inquiries, that he had failed to remit money due the client or account to him, and that he had failed to deposit to a trust account money collected for the client and had commingled the funds with his personal funds. On the second count, the board found that Black had filed an incorrect affidavit on behalf of a client. On the last count, the board found that Black had failed to forward certain sums collected on behalf of another client, that he failed to deposit such funds in the trust account and had commingled these funds with his personal funds. The board also found that at the time of the hearing, Black had deposited with the Board of Commissioners sufficient funds to pay the claims of his clients, and that these sums had been paid to them.
Based on these findings, the board concluded that Black had violated the provisions of Canon 111 of the Canons of Professional Ethics in effect prior to June 25, 1971, and that such conduct was a violation of Disciplinary Rules 9-1022 and 1-1023 [673]*673of the Code of Professional Responsibility governing the conduct of attorneys practicing law after June 25, 1971. The board also found that an ambiguity existed in the statute under which Black had filed an affidavit, and that Black did so without any intent to deceive, and further concluded that as to this count there was no violation of the Code of Professional Ethics or the Code of Professional Responsibility, concerning the filing of the affidavit.
Based on the findings and conclusions the Board recommended that Black be suspended from practice for a period of twenty-four months and to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings. Black thereafter filed his petition for review.
The petitioner at the hearing before the board admitted the allegations of fact in the complaint filed against him but denied that his conduct breached any canons or rules of professional ethics. In his petition for review, the petitioner contends that extenuating circumstances absolve him from any wrongdoing.
This court determines that the board’s findings of fact are sustained by the record, and that the conclusions of law are correct. The court is of the conclusion that petitioner has been guilty of professional misconduct. However, considering all the circumstances surrounding these derelictions, it is the conclusion of this court that suspension from practice shall be for a period of twelve months.
On the basis of the record in this proceeding, it is hereby ordered that Richard R. Black be disciplined by suspension of his right to practice law for a period of twelve months and that he shall pay all costs of these proceedings. The suspension shall become effective from the date this decision becomes final and until twelve months have expired. Upon expiration of the period of suspension and payment of costs, petitioner may apply for reinstatement of his license to practice law. The Board of Commissioners shall certify its recommendation on such application to this court.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
518 P.2d 270, 95 Idaho 672, 1974 Ida. LEXIS 486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-black-idaho-1974.