IN THE MATTER OF DOUGLAS MARSHALL, An Attorney at Law, Respondent.
File No. 17-123
Douglas W. Marshall (Attorney) Representing: Douglas W.
Marshall Service Method: eService
R. Thompson (Attorney) Representing: Office of Disciplinary
Counsel Service Method: eService
E. Taleff (Attorney) Representing: Commission on Practice
Service Method: E-mail Delivery
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER ON
RULE 26 CONDITIONAL ADMISSION
“Mick” Taleff Chair.
Adjudicatory Panel of the Commission on Practice conducted a
hearing on Douglas Marshall's Conditional Admission
and Affidavit of Consent on July 25, 2019 in Helena,
Montana. Panel members participating were Chair Ward
"Mick" Taleff, Jean Faure, Kelly Gallinger, Gene
Huntington, Patt Leikam, Carl Mendenhall, Lois Menzies,
Heather Perry and Bob Savage. The Office of Disciplinary
Counsel was represented by interim Chief Disciplinary Counsel
Shaun Thompson. Mr. Marshall appeared on his own behalf.
Based upon the Conditional Admission and Affidavit of
Consent, as well as the statements and information
presented at the hearing, the Commission makes the following
factual findings, reaches the following conclusions of law
and enters its Order:
Douglas Marshall ("Marshall"), was admitted to the
practice of law in Montana in 1994, at which time he took the
oath required for admission and 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 set
forth in parts 3 and 4 of Chapter 61, Title 3 7, Montana Code
Montana Supreme Court has approved and adopted the Montana
Rules of Professional Conduct ("MRPC"), governing
the ethical conduct of attorneys licensed to practice in
Montana, which Rules were in effect at all times mentioned in
the Complaint filed in this matter.
October 2016, Marshall began representing John Graves
("Graves") concerning a potential civil rights
violation and a wrongful discharge claim arising from the
termination of Graves' employment on July 28, 2016.
Graves paid Marshall a retainer of $ 1, 500.00 to investigate
Marshall did not provide Graves with a written communication
setting forth the scope of the representation and the basis
or rate of fees and expenses, Marshall's explanation to
the Commission was that he was uncertain whether the
representation would be on an hourly basis or a contingent
During the representation, Marshall did not diligently
investigate and pursue Graves' claims.
July 28, 2017, Marshall hand-delivered a Complaint
signed by Graves to be conventionally filed with the U.S.
District Court, Butte Division, on the last day for ...