Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Eveland

Supreme Court of Montana

July 25, 2013

IN THE MATTER OF MARTIN J. EVELAND, A Suspended Attorney at Law, Respondent.

Supreme Court Cause No. ODC File No. 13-123

COMPLAINT

Upon leave of the Commission on Practice, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel for the State of Montana (ODC) hereby charges Martin J. Eveland with professional misconduct as follows:

General Allegations

1. Martin J. Eveland, hereinafter referred to as Respondent, was admitted to the practice of law in the State of Montana in 2003, at which time he took the oath required for ! admission, wherein he agreed to abide by the Rules of Professional 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 in parts 3 and 4 of Chapter 61, Title 37, Montana Code Annotated.

2. The Montana Supreme Court has approved and adopted the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC), governing the ethical conduct of attorneys licensed to practice in the State of Montana, which Rules were in effect at all times mentioned in this Complaint.

Count One

3. ODC re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 2 of the General Allegations as if fully restated in this Count One.

4. On February 11, 2013, ODC received an ethics grievance lodged by Respondent's former client, Wade Smith, generally alleging Respondent provided him with incompetent representation.

5. By mailings dated February 22, 2013 (first-class), and March 26, 2013 (first-class and certified), ODC lawfully demanded Respondent's response to the grievance.

6. Respondent acknowledged receiving ODC's certified demand on March 27, 2013.

7. To date, Respondent has failed to provide any response as demanded.

8. Respondent's failure to respond to ODC's lawful demands concerning this grievance violated Rule 8.1(b), MRPC, and Rule 8A(6), MRLDE, resulting in grounds for discipline.

Count Two

9. ODC re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 2 of the General Allegations as if fully restated in this Count Two.

10. On April 19, 2013, ODC received an ethics grievance lodged by the parents of Respondent's former client, Josh Gray, generally alleging that Respondent provided him with incompetent representation and failed to provide an accounting of a $5, 000 retainer upon termination of the representation.

11. By mailings dated April 30, 2013 (first-class), and May 24, 2013 (first-class and certified), ODC lawfully demanded Respondent's response to the grievance.

12. Respondent acknowledged receipt of ODC's certified demand on May 25, 2013.

13. To date, Respondent has failed to provide any response as demanded.

14. Respondent's failure to respond to ODC's lawful demands concerning this grievance violated Rule 8.1(b), MRPC, and Rule 8A(6), MRLDE, resulting in grounds for discipline.

Count Three

15. ODC re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 2 of the General Allegations as if fully restated in this Count Three.

16. On May 20, 2013, ODC received an ethics grievance lodged by Public Defender Jennifer Kaleczyc, generally alleging she witnessed Respondent providing incompetent representation to his clients, Matthew Thompson and Troy Brin, by his abandonment of their cases without prior notice or required withdrawal motion.

17. By mailings dated May 30, 2013 (first-class), and June 24, 2013 (first-class and certified), ODC lawfully demanded Respondent's response to the grievance.

18. On July 15, 2013, ODC's certified demand was returned as unclaimed; however, neither first-class demand was returned as undeliverable or unclaimed by Respondent.

19. To date, Respondent has failed to provide any response as demanded.

20. Respondent's failure to respond to ODC's lawful demands concerning this grievance violated Rule 8.1(b), MRPC, and Rule 8A(6), MRLDE, resulting in grounds for discipline.

WHEREFORE, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel prays:

1. That a Citation be issued to the Respondent, to which shall be attached a copy of the complaint, requiring Respondent, within twenty (20) days after service thereof, to file a written answer to the complaint;

2. That a formal hearing be had on the allegations of this complaint before an Adjudicatory Panel of the Commission;

3. That the Adjudicatory Panel of the Commission make a report of its findings and recommendations after a formal hearing to the Montana Supreme Court, and, in the event the Adjudicatory Panel finds the facts warrant disciplinary action and recommends discipline, that the Commission also recommend the nature and extent of appropriate disciplinary action; and,

4. For such other and further relief as deemed necessary and proper.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.