Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

In re Encinas

Supreme Court of Montana

October 22, 2013

IN THE MATTER OF EDUARDO L. ENCINAS, An Attorney at Law, Respondent. ODC File No. 13-200

Shaun R. Thompson, Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

COMPLAINT

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel for the State of Montana ("ODC"), hereby charges Eduardo L. Encinas with professional misconduct as follows:

General Allegations

1. Eduardo L. Encinas, hereinafter referred to as Respondent, was admitted to the practice of law in the State of Montana in 1984 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 realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 2 of the General Allegations as if fully restated in this Count One.

4. On June 7, 2013, ODC received a complaint against Respondent submitted by Detective Bing Han of the Monterey Park, California, Police Department. ODC opened said matter as ODC No. 13-129.

5. By letter dated June 24, 2013, ODC directed Respondent to respond to the complaint. Respondent was requested to provide his response within 21 days from the date of the letter. Respondent failed to respond.

6. By letter dated July 26, 2013, sent via regular mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, ODC again directed Respondent to respond to the complaint. Respondent was requested to provide his response within 10 days from the date of the letter. Respondent failed to respond.

7. Respondent's conduct, as described herein, constitutes a violation of 8.1(b), MRPC.

8. Respondent's failure to promptly and fully respond to inquiries from Disciplinary Counsel is, in accordance with Rule 8A(6), RLDE (2011), a ground for discipline.

Count Two

9. ODC realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 2 of the General Allegations as if fully ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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