Matter of Patrick Sandefur

Opinion

11/18/2020

Case Number: PR 20-0039

FILE COIVJE:11S.5:17,:,,N OF'fliE GOi..);11"

NOV 1 8 2020 STATE,C4F 1.1101TrAil.A. • •

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of Supreme Court 1." D 2025 • State of Montana

BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON PRACTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TliE STATE OF MONTANA

*THE MATTER OF ) Supreme'Courtcause NO. PR 20,0039 ) Commission.File NO.19-078 PATRICK SANDEFW., ) FINDINGS OF FACT,

An Attorney at Law, ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ) RECOMMENDATION ON RULE 26 Respondent. ) CONDITIONAL ADMISSION AND ) AFFIDAVIT OF CQNSENT

)

Hearing:on the (onditionat Admission andAffidivii of CiinSthit ("COndifibncitAdMiSSiOn")filed in -this Matter eame on fôr,hearing before the Elkhorn Adjudicatory Panel ofthe Commission on Practipp on Opigbpr T 5, 2020 by id/tub" CointhisSion MeMbers participating M ,the PitiCeeding Were. Ward "Mier Taleff, Chair, Brad Bence, Miehael Blaek,Pat DeVrieS, Jean Faure, Lori Maloney, Lois Menzies;Dan O'Brien, Randy Ogle and Heather Perry, The Office ofDisciplinary Counsel was represented by Chief Diseiplihary Counsel Pain Bucy. Mr. Sandefur appeared and was represented by Ed Sheehy. Based upon the ConditiOndl Admission and the record at the hearing, in accordance With Rule 26A, MRLDE,the Cmninission makes its findings offact, reaches its conclusions oflaw, and makes its recommendation for discipline.

2

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Patrick Sandefur("Sandefur") was admitted to the practice of law in Montana in 1997, at whieh time he took the oath required for admission, agived to abide by the Rules ofProfessional Conduct, the Disciplinary Rules adopted by the Supreme Court, and the highest standards of honesty,justice and morality, including, but nOt limited to, those outlined ih parts 3 and 4 of Chapter 61, Title 37, Montana Code Annotated,then in effect or as thereafter amended.

2. The Montana Supreme Court has approved at-id adopted the Montana Rules ofProfessional Conduct("lVIRPC") governing the ethical conduct of attorneys lieensed to practice in Montana- which Rules-were m effect at all times releVaiittb the ehargeS in the COMplaint.

3. puring the thne period of July through September, 2019,the Op( reCeived three grievances alleging Sandefur engaged in Unethical conduct while.

represen g three defendantS foi whom he was appointed as cotipsel. The grievances were docketed as ODC File Nos: 19-075, 19-076, and 19-102.

4. In August, 2019 the ODC'forwarded grievanCes 197075 and 19-076-to Sandefur, In October 2019,the ODC forwarded grievance 19-102 to Sandefur. The ODC requested hi• resPohSe to each. Sandefur reeeiVed the reqUests but did not respOnd.

5. The ODC send second notices of the grievances to Sandefur in

3

SePteinber Növernber 209,respectiVely. Stieh nOtites Were reCeived:by hhn.

In a phone conversation with ODC.on October. Sandefur was granted an extension:to October 11, 2019 to provide hiS reSp6nSeS16 grieVaneeS 19475:and 19 070. The•Qp0also granted Sandefur an eXtepsion On grievance 19 OZ 7.. ODC eiriailed Sandefur On October 28,2019,'reanding thot hapi itirissed the October .l lkdeadline and ihe pending:deadline f'pr responding to 19442. By 6tr1aut4at Satne,day,he adViSed the ODC16 had been "WOrking,diligently" to.anSWer the grievanceS and would have them.Mailed:and, mailed that day. Despite that assurance,"he did not do so.

8. Despite the ODC filing a Complaint and its serial,reque'sts for his, response,:it was not until late August 2020, through his attorney,tkat .SpAdefqr filed hiS•reSPonSeS tO the three 9. Alfh04hlot dlotgo'd $6n4pfut :in his.Orn-e01041 4.4mi,swign admits he violated Rule 8.1(a), MRPC,by imowingly making a false Statement When he advised the!ODC on October 28„ 2019 that the -reSpOnseS WoUld be mailed and erri4iied that day;

. 10. Sandefur:14S one.PribrdiSeiPlina6 eVent., app:daièd -156f6te Commission on Practice in July 2019 for a Rule 24, MRLDE,Order to Show Cause hearing for his failure to respond to a prior gr evance. That matter was held

4

in abeyance periding the ODC't review ofthe response and has now been resolved.

l. Sandefur offered in mitigation personal reasons for his failure-to iespond to the requests ofthe ODC. Although the responses Sandefur eventually proVided to the ODC in October 2020, were considered very thorough and the grievances dismissed by the ODC,the reasons for his lengthy failure to respond' appearto have been resOlved by April 2020. No explanation was given for the ensuing approximately 6-month delay in responding.

BO-6d 4pQn.the fOrgOing Aefoal findihg,the.CötnriiiSganieacheS lbgpfl conclusions.

-CONCLUSIONS OF LAW . . • All jitriSdieticinal and i- iroCedural i'equireitentifot'thdo.Ditioeeding$ baV6 hoo ROO fa.iligp tq rp4p0n4 ta the ODc's ,Sandefitr ViOlated R.:1(b); MRPC.

SA(0),. MRLDE,provides -a separate.ground for a finding of an ethical 'Violation, Sandefur violated this RWebY failing tO ro.inptly aridfolly i4.e$06-nd -

to the inVireS Ofthe QDC std:in.faiktv to tipwtyiWtify-s4Oli oft1041 or

111PrwwcTi.§P. 4. . Sandefur's -4Aili?th.' eldirns l•adk of iriforinatiOii MRILDE,.poyides additional grounds for discipline and asserts his. prior

5

disCiplinary'history is not relevant and should be e:kcluded frorn coriSidéiatiori Clut.to its'prejtidieial:affectStbStantially outweighingits prObOtiVe value.

SandefOr's.prior.disciplinary Tocord is not relevant;tp'the,violations charged in the Cbijifilthiht, Nit- is releVant in ConSidering the fôrnibldiScipline tinder Rule '9B, MRLD.E.: .

5 The.Cornthission lacks-authority to lin:pose discipline fOreonduct that has notteeti the:Subject ofthe re Best, 2010-MT 59,355 Mofit 365, 229p,5d 1261. thprobre„ 4qp#0::.liis admission that he yiolated Rule 8,10), • Siieh:COndiict Shotild and Will ribt-bo Conšideredtethe COMMiisiOn.

..:RECOMMENDATMN FOR ptsopuNt Sandefbr tendered his Cpnditipnal Adrnissioffin exchange for the following discipline:

1. An admonition by the Commission on Practice, to be delivered in • • - • I • •

writing Or orally, at the Commission's discretion.

2, A suspension from the practice oflaw for a period not to exceed 30 days, with the ODC being abie to advocate for imposition ofa 30-day suspensiön, while Sandefur able to advocite for a lesser sanction.

Payment ofcosts incurred by the ODC and the Commission on Practice in this matter.

Sandefur has acknowledged the Commission's decision to impose discipline

6

is finaj unless, within ten days ofthe Commission's decisiop, he, the QDC,or a member ofthe ptiblic files a petition with the Clerk ofthe SUpreme Court asking the Court to review the decision.

The Commission recornmends that Sandefur's discipline be an admOnition by the Cornthission on Practice, to be delivered in writing or orally atthe Commissiods discretion that he be suspended from the practice oflaw for a period oflOdaySi:With-The inelusive Peridd Of:Sikh stiSperiSibii to: b:e agreed uPon:between. tiie Opo_od $pd‘4- in vie* ewi0aciwit4 tbq Officeofthe pok

.. with a ClOrnmen0Ment date nOt laterthaii EV&(5),MonthS'Frain the:

Defender, but

date thiS COurt- aeöePtsthis.reeOrrimendatibn in order tO alloW i4rid 4frt4cilifinie to arrange fOr snbstinite representation in his'oases:but to hotallow a loge'':daseload to delay ofthe lant4 iieriOd„.and thgt he 115.i.fopoti$thto for potriot oft(*:$ inctored.bythe:OI)C and .ftio Commission on riapftc .ib0-4 rnattpr RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION The QDC's request for.a response froin :Saildp.:4fr to the three grievatIce&-‘y0.5 firsfinadein Angiiit2019: The.CoiiikiiiiiitWas filed in. thig ifiatter. On 15, 2920, The_Akswer)0§:'fl:w 11, 2020-. Sande.;f4r'' tre4trOnt fOr. pet0n41: .issue was complete by April id,2f) and hereturned to ftiOhne work by that date, YetifwaS not Until AUgust1020., jjerai'.aftetthe 01).C%

7

that Sandefur finallyprovided a response to it. The fact that while those requests Were made Sandefur had already been the Subject dfa shOW CatiSe hearing in July 2.019for failing to'respond to OPC inquiries and anticipated an order tegarding 4 should have motivated him to action: Yet he still delayed formpre than a. year ip respdhding to that office and:misled .it abdut his intentions-When the- ODO':S patience would periodically Tun but and would attempt to nudge him to,cooperate.

In thOsecirCumStances,:and giVen the ithpottance this ammiSsion pla.ces on the obligation of attorneys to fully and proMptly cooperate with,the OD(,,and not without sympathy to the personal Issues he was facing; Sandefur's plea f9r a,more leilient'periOd ofsUSpenSion :ate td his caseload Merits little ekSideration ifi the view ofthe Commission. It is a plea virtually every trial lawyer could make. 13y proVidifig a significant fime frame within which thesuSpension can take effect but withont letting it be put off indefinitely, Sandefur and his office should be capable ofresolving staffing needs.

The ODC concurred in this form of discipline and remained steadfast that the period of suspension should be irnposed.

Respectfully.submitted-this 9th day of Ncivember, 2020:

COMMISSION ON =PRACTYCE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

By

Ward "Mick" Taleff, erson

8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1 hereby certify that I Served a -true copy Ofthe Order bn Rule 26 Conditional Adthišsion and AffidaVit of Consefit via,electronic service,this 10 day of November,2020, as follows:

$.4poly

CoUnsel fdr ReSp'endent

211N.Iiigging.AVe., Ste 401 MiSsOuia,.KT 5902

,b8heehiv@rift.gov

Pamela D.Bucy

DePuty Disciplinaiy Counsel P.O. Box 1099

Ti*na, MT 59624-1699

pbucy@montanaodc.crg

Slip0 So t Ofacg.