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 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 restated in this Count Two.

10.On June 17, 2013, ODC received a complaint against Respondent submitted by Eloy Barrios of Medford, Oregon. ODC opened said matter as ODC No. 13-135.

11. By letter dated June 25, 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.

12. 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.

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

14. 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 Three

15. ODC realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 2 of the General Allegations, paragraphs 4 through 6 of Count One and paragraphs 10 through 12 of Count Two as if fully restated in this Count Three.

16. As a result of Respondent's failure to respond to ODC's inquiries, the Commission on Practice, pursuant to Rule 24, RLDE (2011), issued an Order to Show Cause, which directed Respondent to personally appear before the Commission on October 16, 2013 at 4:00 p.m. at the Supreme Court, in Helena, Montana.

17. Respondent did not appear.

18. Respondent's conduct, as described herein, constitutes a violation of Rules 8.1(b) and/or 8.4(d), MRPC.

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.