In re Hughes

Utah Supreme Court

In re Hughes

534 P.2d 892, 1975 Utah LEXIS 677

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedApril 24, 1975

DocketNo. 13900

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 534 P.2d 892 (In re Hughes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Hughes, 534 P.2d 892, 1975 Utah LEXIS 677 (Utah 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is a review of a disciplinary hearing, report and recommendation of the Utah State Bar Association, based on two complaints filed with that agency, alleging violation of Rule III, Canon 9, DR 9-102 (A and B) (1) and (3), of the Disciplinary Rules of the Bar.

The two complaints had to do with commingling of clients’ funds with petitioner’s personal funds. Such commingling was conceded. In a lengthy hearing, however, petitioner sought to explain away the infractions, and though there was some controverted testimony, the petitioner himself made it appear that his actions were culpable under the provisions of the Canon, and although we are not bound to the recommendation of the Bar Commission, in this case we think it not unreasonable to follow it to the effect: That petitioner be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and thereafter until he shall reimburse the Utah State Bar for the actual expenses incurred by it in connection with the disciplinary proceeding.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This is a review of a disciplinary hearing, report and recommendation of the Utah State Bar Association, based on two complaints filed with that agency, alleging violation of Rule III, Canon 9, DR 9-102 (A and B) (1) and (3), of the Disciplinary Rules of the Bar.

The two complaints had to do with commingling of clients’ funds with petitioner’s personal funds. Such commingling was conceded. In a lengthy hearing, however, petitioner sought to explain away the infractions, and though there was some controverted testimony, the petitioner himself made it appear that his actions were culpable under the provisions of the Canon, and although we are not bound to the recommendation of the Bar Commission, in this case we think it not unreasonable to follow it to the effect: That petitioner be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and thereafter until he shall reimburse the Utah State Bar for the actual expenses incurred by it in connection with the disciplinary proceeding.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

534 P.2d 892, 1975 Utah LEXIS 677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hughes-utah-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack