bryan scott storer boise idaho attorney answer on july 13 2010 to formal complaint fc 10-04 dated...

'

JOHN L. RUNFT (ISB # 1059) JON M. STEELE (ISB # 1911) RUNFT & STEELE LAW OFFICES, PLLC 1020 W. Main Street, Suite 400 Boise, Idaho 83702 Phone: (208) 333-8506 Fax: (208) 343-3246 Email: [email protected]

Attorneys for Respondent

~OFESSIONAI. 00!\IDUCT BOI\At IDAHO STATE BAR

JUL 13 2010

BEFORE THE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BOARD

OF THE IDAHO STATE BAR

IDAHO STATE BAR, File No.: FC 10-04

Plaintiff,

vs. ANSWER

BRYAN S. STORER, ISB # 6944

Respondent.

COMES NOW Respondent, Bryan Storer, ISB #6944, by and through his attorney of

record, John L. Runft, and in answer to the Complaint file herein on May 19'h, 2010, admits,

denies and alleges as follows:

1. Respondent denies each and every allegation contained in the Complaint not

specifically admitted herein.

2. Respondent admits the allegations of paragraphs I, 2, and 3 of the Complaint.

ANSWER- Page I of 34 ORIGtNAL

MISTY AND GABRIEL HERNANDEZ

COUNT ONE

3. Respondent submits tbat the background information contained in Respondent's

response to paragraph 33 below should be considered throughout this Answer in his belieftbat it is

relevant to tbe following responses and should be born in mind when measuring his conduct and the

allegations against him under the standards of the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct.

4. Plaintiff admits the allegations set forth in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

Respondent did respond to Mr. Ford's 06-19-09letter and 07-05-09 Motion to Compel via letter on

July 17, 2007 informing him that discovery responses were late because he was still awaiting

signature to the Response from Ms. Hernandez. Respondent stated that the responses would be

delivered once tbe client's signature was obtained. Moreover, Respondent sent Mr. Ford tbree more

faxes dated July 14, 24, and 25, 2007, regarding the responses and then served the responses on July

25,2007.

5. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 1 0 of the Complaint. The

scheduling conflict was for an SLRA evaluation scheduled for the same time as the hearing.

6. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph II of the Complaint.

7. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Complaint. The lack

of any response by Respondent arose from the problems explained above. Admit. These

documents were not entered on any mail log or brought to Respondent's attention upon receipt.

Respondent used (and currently uses) three ring binders to manage files. The copies of papers of

the motion for attorney fees that I found much later did not even have holes punched in them,

indicating that they were not ever put into a binder where I at least could find them upon review of

the file. Jason did not keep a Pleading Index on this file. I was unable to file a response to

something I did not even know I had received.

ANSWER- of 34

8. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of the Complaint. Jason

Carroll had left the office a week before this letter was received. Because of his debilitating medical

condition Respondent was unable to keep track of the office communications. Nevertheless,

Respondent mistakenly believed that he would be able to get back on top of the situation relatively

soon. A temporary legal secretary was attempting help out in the mess left by Mr. Carroll, but she

was overwhehned, since, as it turned out Respondent's recovery was not as swift as he had hoped.

There were no entries in the phone logs, no entry in the mail log that the letter was ever received,

documents were not scanned and placed in the binder.

9. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the Complaint. For

reasons stated above, there were no entries in the phone logs, no entry in the mail log that the letter

was ever received, documents were not scam1ed and placed in the binder.

10. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 15 of the Complaint.


reasons stated above, there were no entries in the mail log that the documents ever received,

documents were not scanned and placed in the binder.



was ever received, documents were not scanned and placed in the binder.



was ever received, documents were not scanned and placed in the binder. I did not know hearing

was scheduled.

ANSWER- of 34



was ever received, documents were not scanned and placed in the binder.


Respondent had hired a new paralegal, Debbie Smith, in December and was working with her as

best he could, to reinstate the filing system and unearth the problems from the files previously

mismanaged by Jason Carroll. For reasons stated above, Respondent had finally seen the Motion

for Partial Summary Judgment and realized he needed more time in order to respond.


reasons stated above, there were no prior entries in the phone logs, no entry in the mail log that the

documents had been received, and none of the documents had been scanned and placed in the

binder. Debbie Smith was methodically sorting through Jason Carroll's messes and made

Respondent aware of the extent of the mismanagement of the files. It became apparent to

Respondent and Debbie Smith that the Hernandez file was the worst example of the mismanaged

files.


Debbie was trying to regain control of this case and was able to provide documents to Respondent

regarding this hearing.



Because of his continuing health issues, Respondent solicited the assistance of other legal counsel to

help him with his cases and participate in his office practice for an indefinite period of time.

Attorney Mark Means responded to an inquiry on the ITLA website. The objective of this plan was

to have another lawyer in the office to cover for Respondent when he was not feeling well until such

ANSWER- of 34

time as my health issues abated. During the fall of2007, Respondent's condition had worsened and

he suffered from periods of severe headaches and lack of sleep, which left him severely debilitated.

Respondent and Mark Means filed a notice of association in the Hernandez case as well as on

several other cases. It was clearly understood between Mr. Means and Respondent that Mr. Means

would carry this case forward until Respondent regained his health.

20. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 25 of the Complaint. Around

this time Debbie Smith was gradually getting control of some of the cases. Respondent had also

been trying for some to time to improve his office document scanning system so that he would be

able to see files while at home via internet. During this period Respondent was still contemplating

surgery since his excruciating headaches and tinnitus continued to be debilitating and he was forced

to work out of my home for an extended period of time. During this time the staff was scmming

documents, and Respondent assumed that these documents in the Hernandez case were directed to

Means attention due to his Association in the case.


Respondent does not know precisely what happened with regard to this motion for Snnnnary

Judgment. Respondent believes that staff was confused as to whether he or Means should have

been receiving these documents, since we had filed the notice of association. Just a few months

early (mid December, 2007) Means had substituted for Respondent in the Hunter case with the

intent that Respondent would no longer be legal counsel in that case. I mn not sure if staff got

confused on Hernandez and assumed that Means should be receiving these documents.

22. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 27, 28, and 29 of the

Complaint. See Respondent's responses to paragraphs Nos. 25 and 26 of the Complaint.


Respondent becaJile aware that he had a major problem with Mark Means when he managed to get

ANSWER- of 34

the Hunter dismissed and that Means was unreliable and dishonest. These allegations regarding Mr.

Means will be proven in on-going litigation related to the Hunter case. Respondent immediately

disassociated with Mr. Means. Respondent immediately associated in his practice with attorney

Clinton Evan Miner to accomplish what I had hoped to do with Means. Mr. Miner has proven to be

reliable, honest, and competent. Mr. Miner had no responsibility for any of the problems in the

Hernandez case. Mr. Miner has been handling all of Respondent's litigation and WC files.

Respondent is no longer involved with the litigation end of his practice unless it is to help Mr.

Miner.

24. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 31 and 32 of the Complaint.

25. Respondent denies each of the following specific allegations of the Idaho Rules of

Professional Conduct contained in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint; namely, Idaho Rules of

Professional Conduct 1.1 (Competence); 1.2 (Failure to pursue client objectives); 1.3 Diligence; 1.4

(Communication); 3.4 (d) (Failure to make reasonably diligent efforts to comply with discovery

request): and 8.4(d) Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). Relevant to consideration

of whether Respondent violated the subject rules or was faced with circumstances beyond his

control are the following background facts.

(a) At this time in the summer of2007, Respondent was experiencing the

repercussions of serious health issues, primarily arising from a brain tumor, hemorrhagic blood

mass, and related treatment (including radiation), medical evidence of which condition and

treatment will be provided. Respondent's medical condition and the unanticipated repercussions

created intra-office difficulties which, inter alia interfered with Respondent's ability to oversee the

functioning of his office staff, which included obtaining signatures of clients to responses to

discovery. These problems have long since been remedied and procedures put in place to

compensate and overcome any difficulties arising from Respondent's medical condition.

ANSWER- of 34

(b) Respondent's office staff at that time consisted of Matt Peterson and Jason

Carroll, who, as Respondent later discovered, did not document all communications despite his

repeatedly asking them to do so. Respondent recalls that Matt and/or Jason had attempted to get

Ms. Hernandez to come in to sign the discovery responses, but were unable to accomplish this for

some unknown, undocumented reason. At this time, Respondent was also having problems with

Matt and Jason (mostly Jason) following office procedures, such as providing Respondent with

copies of mail, communication updates (phone calls and written communications), and maintaining

a mail log.

(c) Jason Carroll was the paralegal at that time. He is tl1e one who was responsible

for managing this file. There are no phone entries from him anywhere in the computer despite him

being the person responsible for the communications. There are no phone entries in Gabriel

Hernandez's file from March 13, 2006 until November 26, 2007. There were no phone entries in

Misty Hernandez's file from August 18, 2006 until January 11, 2008. Jason worked at Respondent's

office for a little over one year, from July 17, 2006 until September 28, 2007. The relationship with

Jason began to seriously deteriorate as Respondent admonished and criticized Jason for his job

perfonnance. Because of his dependency arising from the unanticipated onset of repercussions

from his medical condition, Respondent was initially reluctant to fire Jason until Respondent could

take measures to stabilize his medical condition and practice. After leaving Respondent's office,

Jason filed an extremely hostile Bar complaint in 2008, which was dismissed in its entirety. Jason's

complaint itself demonstrated his own calumny. He maintained that Respondent did not return

some clients phone calls, but the only notations of those calls were his handwritten notes to himself

that he never entered in the computer or otherwise relayed to me. He presented the bar his

handwritten notes as "evidence" of the client phone calls despite the computer being devoid any

entries from him or his ever giving Respondent any of his hand written notations. There are no

ANSWER- of 34

User

Typewritten Text

phone or mail entries from him in this file even though he was the only paralegal in the office and

was responsible for maintaining this file.

(d) Respondent realized that it was particularly imperative for hum to be able to rely

upon staff to function during this period of disability. Respondent had wanted to fire Jason but did

not feel that he could do so when hw was having a hard time with debilitating exhaustion and

keeping up physically, even with his wife's help. The prospect of having to hire and train new staff

was more than he could manage in his debilitated condition. Moreover, until toward the end of

Jason's tenure, Respondent was unaware of the extent of Jason's failure to perform his duties and

the lack of record keeping detail. It was difficult to ascertain how much damage Jason was doing

since Respondent did not know how many phone calls he was not getting or how much

correspondence he was not seeing. In summary, under conditions of emergency and psychological

and physical disability, Respondent was relying on staff to be honest and reliable.

During relevant times referenced in this Complaint, Respondent was rendered incapacitated

as defined under Rule 515 of the Rules or Review of Professional Conduct both physically and

emotionally to such an extent that he was unable sufficiently control his law practice with the result

that the events admitted herein above occurred. At no time did Respondent intentionally act to

create the events complained of, or act with moral turpitude, or intentionally misrepresent any facts.

All events complained of arose from inaction on the part of Respondent caused by his temporary

disability. The incapacity caused by his disability has abated and Respondent has taken responsible

steps to establish procedures in his law practice and law office administration, including document

control and dissemination to prevent any reoccurrence of the conditions that led to this complaint.

Primary in said procedures established is the association with another lawyer who will share

management of the law practice and be primarily responsible for handling all matters oflitigation

ANSWER- of 34

and who will be in a position to step in to maters handled by Respondent in the event of any

reoccurring incapacity. .

Respondent hereby petitions the bar for an evaluation under Rule 515 (c) to determine past

and I or present incapacity to practice law and to establish any limitations, if any, in that regard.

LISA HUNTER

COUNT TWO

1. Respondent reiterates the averments set forth hereinabove in paragraph 4 of this

Answer and admits or denies the allegations contained in the following paragraphs of Count Two of

the Complaint as follows: .

2. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 34.

3. Regarding the allegations set forth in paragraph 35, Respondent admits that the

demand was sent to Geico and denies that that Hunter was not informed of this. Respondent avers

that Hunter had already informed him on several occasions of her ongoing difficult financial

situation and insisted that the demand be sent as soon as possible.

4. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 36.

5. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 3 7.


7. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 39. I spoke to Hunter on

March 10, 2006 as well as March 14, 2006 regarding these interactions with Geico.

8. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 40. Hunter was told on

March 10, 2006 that the circumstances of her claim, including her fall in the bathtub, require the

filing of the lawsuit. This was explained to her several times again prior to the filing of the lawsuit.

ANSWER- of 34

She was well informed of the filing. She was also informed regarding defendant being served prior

to that occurring.

9. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 41


11. Regarding the allegations set forth in paragraph 43, Respondent admits forwarding

documents to PSF however, and pursuant it was done pursuant to Hunter's request since PSF would

not process the request without the documents.



14. With regard to the allegations set forth in par graph 46, Respondent admits only that

discovery responses were submitted on January 19, 2007 and that Mr. Fuhrman filed a Motion to

Compel. Respondent denies that the Motion was justified.

15. Respondent lacks sufficient information to answer the allegations contained in

paragraph 47 regarding the mail to Matt Peterson. Respondent denies that Hunter did not know suit

had been filed since she was told multiple times of the filing prior to its occurrence as well as being

told on October 17, 2006 that Respondents were attempting to serve defendant.



18. Admit. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 50.

19. Regarding the allegations set forth in paragraph 51, Respondent admits that

Fuhrman sent a letter dated July 10,2007. Because oflack of information as to the remaining

allegations, Respondent denies same, since Mr. Means has not returned the file with relevant

documents and cotrnnunications.

20. Admit Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 52.

ANSWER- of 34

21. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 53. Respondent avers that

he moved his office during the last week of July 2007. Forwarding orders were submitted on

several occasions, yet Respondent still did not receive any mail for several weeks. A postal worker

later admitted to having incorrectly entered the forwarding order resulting in mail not being

delivered for an extended period of time. Respondent eventually received several bins of mail on

one day that had been accumulating for weeks.

22. Regarding the allegations contained in paragraph 54, for lack of sufficient

information Respondent denies said allegations. Mr. Means has not returned the file with relevant

documents and communications.

23. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 55. Respondent avers

that the office was moved during the last week of July, 2006. Respondent believes the Notice of

Change of Address was filed the first week of August, 2007.

24. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 56, except that

Respondent does not sufficient infonnation to know whether there was no response, and therefore

denies same, since Mr. Means has not returned the original file with relevant documents and

communications.


26. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 58, except that

Respondent denies the remaining allegation for lack of sufficient infonnation, because Mr. Means

has not returned the file with relevant documents and communications.


28. Regarding the allegations contained in paragraph 60, because of lack of sufficient

information Respondent denies said allegations. Mr. Means has not returned the file with relevant

documents and communications.

ANSWER- of 34

29. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 61, 62, 63, 64, and 65.

30. Respondent admits only that Mr. Fuhrman filed the motions as alleged in paragraph

66, and denies the remaining allegations because Respondent does not sufficient information to

form a belief regarding same, and therefore denies same, since Mr. Means has not returned the

original file with relevant documents and communications.

31. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 67, 68, 69, and 70.

32. Respondent denies any and all allegations, if any, set forth in paragraph 71 for lack

of sufficient knowledge to answer same.

33. Regarding the allegations set forth in paragraph 72, Respondent admits only that

Mr. Fuhrman filed the motions.

34. Regarding the allegations set forth in paragraph 73, Respondent admits only that he

stated at the hearing that the memorandum and affidavit were inaccurate, Respondent denies that

they were in fact inaccurate.

35. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 74, 75, and 76.

36. Regarding the allegations set forth in paragraph 77, Respondent admits only that the

Substitution of Counsel was executed. Respondent denies Hunter was unaware of this, since

Respondent and Mr. Means met with Hunter on December 10, 2007, and discussed the substitution

of counsel. Respondent avers that Mr. Means referred to her in nwnerous documents as "my

client." Mr. Means emailed Alan Morton stating the contents of his fee agreement with Bruner was

the same as the fee agreement that Respondent previously had with her. Means submitted

additional documents to the Court confirming he was the attorney of record.


38. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 79. Respondent avers that

the basis for the substitution was, and remained, as stated in this complaint. Hunter was already

ANSWER- of 34

aware of Respondent's prior Motion to Withdraw due to her non-compliance with discovery

responses and failure to timely produce documents that she had promised to provide to Respondent.

39. Respondent lacks infonnation to form an opinion as to the truth of the allegations set

forth in paragraph 80 and therefore denies same, since Mr. Means has not returned the file with

relevant documents and connnunications.

40. Respondent lacks information to form an opinion as to the truth of the allegations set

forth in paragraph 81, since he did not participate in the interactions referred to.

41. Respondent lacks information to form an opinion as to the truth of the allegations set

forth in paragraph 82 and therefore denies same, since Mr. Means has not returned the file with

relevant documents and connnunications.


said documents were submitted to Mark Means, no to Respondent.

43. Respondent caunot recall endorsing any check as alleged in paragraph 84, and lacks

information to form an opinion as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 84, and

therefore he denies same.

44. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 85 and 86. Respondent

avers that said documents were submitted to Mark Means, not to Respondent.

45. With regard to the allegations set forth in paragraph 87, Respondent admits only that

Mr. Means filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Respondent avers that he was not asked to provide

an affidavit at the time the motion was filed. It was not until over a month later that Mr. Means

requested from Respondent an affidavit clarifYing the prior interactions between Mr. Fuhrman,

myself, and the Court.

46. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 88 and 89.

ANSWER- of 34


he did not attend the hearing, that he never saw the Memorandum decision, that he did not even

know of its existence, and that he did not know that the hearing had even occurred, since Mr. Means

had never cmrununicated any of this infonnation, or discuss any aspect of this hearing with him.

Respondent further avers that it was his understanding that Mr. Means was continuing to work on

the case, that he was in communication with Hunter since the Substitution of Counsel had been

filed, and that he was no longer receiving documents on the case. Mr. Means was also

communicating with Alan Morton and apparently receiving advice from him as to how to proceed.

Respondent did not have access to the post office box in Caldwell that Mr. Means used for his

mailing so Respondent had no knowledge of what further occurred with this case. Respondent does

not believe Mr. Mean's story as to why Mr. Means did not attend the February 14'\ 2008 hearing.

48. Respondent lacks infonnation to form an opinion as to the truth of the allegations set

forth in paragraph 91 and therefore denies same, since my e-mail settings screen out unknown e

mail sources.

49. Regarding the allegations contained in paragraph 92, because of lack of sufficient

information Respondent denies said allegations, since Mr. Means has not returned the file with

relevant documents and communications.


Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 94 for the same reasons as set forth

hereinabove in Respondent's answer to paragraph 33 of the Complaint . Respondent hereby

petitions the bar for an evaluation under Rule 515 (c) to determine past and I or present incapacity

to practice law and to establish any limitations, if any, in that regard.

ANSWER- of 34

TAMMI BARTH-BILBREY

COUNT THREE


Answer and admits or denies the allegations contained in the following paragraphs of Count Three

of the Complaint as follows: .

52. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 95, 96, and 97, and with

regard to paragraph 97 avers as follows: The pre-suit offer of judgment was $20,000.00.

Respondent did not trust himself to conduct the trial by himself due to his health condition, so I

requested that Brett Fox assist with the trial. The Client, Ms. Bilbrey, knew that Fox was

associating on the case. Client had met with Fox on several occasions pre-trial and was familiar

with him. Client and Respondent had a face to face discussion regarding fees for Fox, at which time

she inquired if she would have to pay full fees to both Fox and Respondent. Respondent

thoroughly explained to her that Fox would be paid out of the fees that Respondent would otherwise

have been paid resulting in no net change to her. Respondent made it clear that Fox's involvement

would cost Respondent, not her. She approved this arrangement. Fox and Respondent each did

about half the trial work.

53. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 98.

54. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 99. In this regard,

Respondent avers as follows: The check and Satisfaction of Judgment was received on August 22,

2006. Respondent was unsure why the check was not deposited until September 28, 2006. This is

so long ago that Respondent is at a disadvantage since it is impossible to remember every detail of a

case from 4-5 years ago. The check may have been held onto by Matt or Jason since the amount

was different than the jury verdict due to collateral source reduction that they may not have been

aware of and he assumed that the check was short and that cashing it would preclude any argument

ANSWER- Page IS of 34

User

Typewritten Text

User

Typewritten Text

User

Typewritten Text

User

Typewritten Text

over receiving the correct amount. Staff could have also held the check assuming that negotiation of

the check would result in accepting it as payment in full and waiver of costs. Since this was the

very first trial I did where a Plaintiff's verdict was received, there were likely several such concerns

regarding cashing the check as noted above, however, I do not recall the specific reason aside from

likely concern of waiving costs by cashing the check or accuracy of the amount.

The normal check receipt process was as such- once a check was received, staff would

calculate the disbursement on a spread sheet and give me both the check and a copy of the spread

sheet. Due to the bank putting a "hold" on out of state checks, we would try to disburse 2 weeks

after the check was deposited and we verified the check did not bounce.


56. Respondent does not have sufficient information to either admit or deny the

allegations contained in paragraph I 01, therefore denies same. Respondent avers, however, as

follows: Respondent did not negotiate the check and does not know what happened to it. I do not

believe it is correct that costs were not mentioned to client. I had discussed her probable portion of

the verdict on October 2, 2006. Although I did not write down every detail of the conversation, it is

highly unlikely that this was not part of the discussion.

57. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 102. In this regard,

Respondent avers as follows: This check was given to client approximately 2 weeks after the check

was deposited which was within a reasonable time of depositing the check. Respondent recalls that

there was an issue over some of the treatment provider charges, interest charges, subrogation, and

general concern over accuracy. It would have been Respondent's preference to not disburse until

staff had verified all costs and treatment charges, subrogation, and costs, however, staff was

complaining that client was demanding payment immediately. Respondent feared paying client

ANSWER- of34

prior to providers and subrogation without knowing for sure what those obligations would be. The

subrogation was not reduced until October 3, 2006.


59. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 104 only as to the checks

sent to Ms. Bilbrey. Moreover, Respondent avers as follows: Ms. Bilbrey was informed of the

anticipated net to her on October 2, 2006 (between $21,000.00 and $24,000.00). However, there

were still ongoing attempts to negotiate the health insurance subrogation that were not completed

until October 3, 2006. I attempted to call client 3 times on October 3, 2006 to discuss disbursement

issues with her.

60. Respondent admit the disbursement alleged in paragraph 105, but does not have

sufficient infonnation to either admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 105,

therefore denies same. Respondent cannot admit or deny Bilbrey contacting his office in early

November 2006 regarding an itemized statement or that someone told her that it was in the mail

since there are no notations in the mail log.

61. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 106. Respondent avers as

follows: The jury award was adjusted by the Court pursuant to the "collateral source" doctrine. The

award was reduced post-trial by the contractual adjustments made by the health care providers. This

was explained to Bilbray while still in the Courtroom after the trial since it was anticipated that this

would happen and was unavoidable. Bilbrey was not told by Respondent to not dispute the matter

because the bookkeeper, Michele Storer, was ill.

62. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 107, 108, 109,110, and

Ill (although it was Allstate Insurance not Allied).

63. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 112. In this regard,

Respondent avers that he notified Bar Counsel by fax of the second check on October 3, 2007, and

ANSWER- of34

in his cover letter, Respondent he sought guidance regarding disbursement. Respondent was

specifically trying to avoid any further problems or miscommunication with client or Bar counsel.

He did not know whether he should contact the client directly or forward a check to Bar Counsel.

Respondent never receive a response from bar counsel.

64. Regarding the allegations contained in paragraphs 113, Respondent admits only that

he negotiated the check and that he paid Tammy nothing, since he did not owe her anything and he

had not received any guidance from the bar as to how best to resolve this matter. Moreover,

Respondent could not indefinitely hold onto the check or it would be stale dated.

65. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 114 for the same reasons

as set forth hereinabove in Respondent's answer to paragraph 33 of the Complaint . Respondent

hereby petitions the bar for an evaluation under Rule 515 (c) to determine past and I or present

incapacity to practice law and to establish any limitations, if any, in that regard. In addition with

regard to the charges under the specific Rule against Respondent's conduct described in paragraphs

95 through 113, Respondent alleges as follows:

1.1 -Competence and 1.3 Diligence- Deny. This was Respondent's first real trial and was figuring

out the post trial process and accounting for the first time. While in hindsight, matters could have

preceded more efficiently, Respondent and Mr. obtained a jury verdict over 4 times the offer of

judgment. There was less than $600.00 of car damage. This is not an indication of a lack of

competence.

1.4 - Communication - Deny. There was frequent communications between Respondent and client

prior and after the trial. Moreover, there was also communication between my staff and client,

although the staff at that time did not document any phone calls.

1.5( c) Contingent Fee Agreement - Deny .There was absolutely a written fee agreement with client.

All client files have and always have had fee agreements. Respondent never has had and does not

ANSWER- of 34

User

Typewritten Text

have any files that do not have this. We do not do anything on a case without a fee agreement,

including this case. I took the fee agreement out of the client binder and had it in my hand when I

was preparing an initial response to the Bar complaint. The Client knows full well that we had a

fee agreement. By the tenns of the fee agreement, the client was paid in full. Her issue with the Bar

was the % of fees, not the existence of the fee agreement. Respondent even reviewed the fee

agreement with her relative to paying Fox from our fees wherein it stated that we had authorization

to associate other attorneys.

1.1 Competence. Deny. Respondent competently obtained the assistance of a co-counsel try this

case before a jury which was competently done and an award obtained. The award was four times

the offer of judgment. There was less than $600 of vehicle damage. Respondent then pursued the

issues of subrogation in a professional manner with good results for the client.

1.3 Diligence. Deny. As stated above, Respondent and co-counsel diligently pursued his matter to a

jury verdict and obtained a very favorable result. Then Respondent followed up attending to the

issues of post trial distribution claims, such as subrogation, and payment of client.

1,4 Communication. Deny. There was frequent and adequate communication between Respondent

and staff with the client both before and after trial.

1.5 (c) Contingent Fee Agreement Deny. Respondent had definitely executed a written fee

agreement with client in this matter. All matters in this law finn commence with a written fee

agreement. The client knows full well that we had a written fee agreement. Her issue before bar is

a matter of percentage of fees, not the existence of a fee agreement. Respondent even reviewed

with the client specifically with reference to attomey Fox participating in the trial of this matter and

showed her the provision authorizing the association of other attomeys ..

ANSWER- of 34

User

Typewritten Text

1.15( d) Failure to distribute undisputed funds. Deny. Respondent's accounting showed that Client

owed Respondent's finn $1,773.72. In an effort to resolve the matter, Respondent requested bar

counsel's guidance on how to handle the second check we received. Bar counsel never responded.

8.4(c) Misrepresentation. Deny. Respondent provided excellent representation. obtained a good

result in a timely fashion, provided accounting, and paid client in full.

CANDY FRAZEE

COUNT FOUR


Answer and admits or denies the allegations contained in the following paragraphs of Count Four

of the Complaint as follows: .


68. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 116, and avers as follows:

This was a form letter that Respondent has clients come by the office and sign. This letter is

accurate except in this case the subrogation paragraph was not corrected that stated: "Fanners

was paid ... ". In fact the insurance company had not yet been paid. This error inadvertently was

overlooked. This paragraph in this fonn letter is the "default" situation and is usually correct,

since it is rare that the subrogation lingers on like this. It is to be modified to fit the situation of a

still to be addressed subrogation. However, to the client's advantage Respondent did write off

all the costs although there was absolutely no obligation or need for Respondent to do so.

69. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 117 In this regard,

Respondent avers that Ms. Frazee "executed the settlement letter ... "indicates she acknowledged

ANSWER· of 34

Dr. Radnovich's outstanding charges. Therefore, her later complaint that these charges were

paid in her behalf contradicts this acknowledgement.

70. Respondent does not have sufficient information to either admit or deny the subject

conversation between Frazee and Dr. Radnovich's office, since he was not a participant in that

interaction, and, therefore, he denies the allegations in paragraph 118. Respondent further avers that

on May 28, 2008, Dr. Radnovich's staff (Patty) specifically verified the balance owing for charges

relating to the collision and payment was made to his office accordingly ($1, 138.00). There was

never any lab work done or included in the charges or records presented to Respondent by Dr.

Radnovich's office. Respondent previously discussed the demand with Frazee on April29, 2008,

and explained that it would be an "IC 12-120(4) demand" and, as is Respondent's customary

practice, he reviewed the providers and expenses to make sure that no providers/treatment expenses

were left out. Frazee knew the amount of Dr. Radnovich's treatment charges were at that time that

would be included in the demand and never disputed that they were related to the collision. There

was never any comment from Frazee that these were for "lab work." None of the bills included in

the demand were for "lab work" and none of the treatment expenses paid out of the settlement funds

to Dr. Radnovich were for "lab work." To date, Respondent has never seen anything from Dr.

Radnovich's office regarding "lab work" for Frazee since none of the records/bills showed that.

Respondent's office received the check back from Dr. Radnovich's office on July 7, 2008 due to

their having received a partial payment from another source after Respondent had provided them

with the check for $1,138.00. However, after the check was returned to Respondent's office, Dr.

Radnovich's office again claimed that there was still an outstanding balance owing resulting in a

dispute over what the balance actually was. Dr. Radnovich gave Respondent back the check but

informed Respondent that Radnovich 's office was switching to a new billing system and that

there was still a substantial balance. Dr. Radnovich and his staff told Respondent that they could

ANSWER- of 34

not confirm the balance at that time until they got their billing system figured out. Respondent

was told that they had no idea what the balance was so Respondent reasonably assumed it could

just as well be for more than the original amount as it could be for less than the original amount.

Since Dr. Radnovich could not properly estimate the amount, Respondent requested them to give

the check back until they could figure out what the correct balance was. The check was remitted

and Respondent voided the check assuming it should not take long for Dr. Radnovich's office to

verify the balance. Respondent attempted on several occasions thereafter to verify what the

actual balance was to no avail. Respondent's strategy was, if the balance was higher than the

original amount given to Respondent, Dr. Radnovich would have to write it off. If it was less

than the original amount, then the client would receive the difference. If it was the same amount,

then the same amount would be paid to Dr. Radnovich. Regardless, I believed it to be my ethical

responsibility to hold the amount in trust until Dr. Radnovich could figure out their billing.

Contrary to the allegations of the Bar complaint, Frazee was informed of this on July 10, 2008 as

well as other times after that until the billing issue with Dr. Radnovich's office was resolved. I was

obligated to hold the disputed funds in the trust account until Dr. Radnovich's office could provide

me with an accurate balance. It was not until August 28, 2008 that Dr. Radnovich's office informed

me that the final balance owing was $31 0.15. A check for the difference was provided to Frazee on

that same day and confinned with a letter ..



conversation, and, therefore, he denies the allegations in paragraph 119. In this regard, Respondent

avers that he had already contacted Dr. Radnovich's office regarding the balance on August 28,

2008 and advised told them that Respondent needed a balance regardless of the status of their

billing system and that there would not be any additional payments after that day regardless of

ANSWER- of 34

whether they came up with a higher amount later. I was told by Dr. Radnovich's staff that there

was a balance of$172.15. Respondent was given an additional balance of $138.00 later that day.

Accordingly, Respondent issued payment for those balances (total $31 0.15) to Dr. Radnovich on

August 28, 2008 as well as a check to client on August 29, 2008 for the difference between that

and the balance I was given in June. Frazee was informed of that.



conversation, and, therefore, he denies the allegations in paragraph 120. Respondent ascertained,

however from Dr. Radnovich's office that Frazee was told by Dr. Radnovich's office on August 29,

2008 that there was a "zero balance," because Respondent's office had already paid the balance the

day before based on Dr. Radnovich's office representation that $310.15 was the accurate balance.

There was no payment to him "lab work" A letter was faxed to client on August 29, 2008,

explaining the above circumstances and that Respondent was initially given inaccurate

information by Dr. Dr. Radnovich's office when I was given the original balance, but I still had an

obligation to cover outstanding balances. The check was mailed to client the same day. Ms

Frazee was not truthful about a charge for "lab work," since there was no lab work charges on

the billing statements Respondent received. This, as well as the actual balance, was later

confinned by Dr. Dr. Radnovich's office in writing- there never were any "lab charges.".


74. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 122. Regarding these

allegations, Respondent avers as follows: These issues were discussed with Frazee within the week

the check was returned to Respondent's office by Dr. Radnovich (July 10, 2008) and numerous

times thereafter. There was no "overpayment" made to Dr. Radnovich by Respondent's office since

the original balance paid ($1,138.00) was supported by Dr. Radnovich's office staff's

ANSWER· of 34

representations. There was an ongoing dispute after the check was returned, since Dr. Radnovich

never stated the check was returned because there was no balance, but rather that the original

balance was reduced form the amount he originally stated. That corrected balance was not given to

Respondent until August 28, 2008.


communications between Frazee and Fanners Insurance Co., since he was not a participant in that

conversation, and, therefore, he denies the allegations in paragraph 123. However, Respondent

does deny that he failed to respond to the Fanners' communications. Farmers received a letter of

representation from Respondent on or about October 17, 2007. Respondent eventually settled the

liability claim with the intention of Frazee paying the subrogation claim to the extent that she was

contractually obligated to pay per Wensman. Despite this, Farmers demanded the entire the entire

subrogation when Respondent spoke to the adjustor on May 16, 2008. Respondent disagreed with

Farmers position and stated such resulting in a "stale mate." The Farmers adjustor was belligerent

throughout these communication. Despite her having a letter of representation from

Respondent's office, she persistently called the client in order to aggravate the subrogation issue

and misrepresent our communications. The very letter that client received from Fanners on

August 30, 2008 validates Respondent's position regarding the subrogation. Farmers was still

demanding the entire subrogation without reduction per Wensman, despite Respondent's prior

communications with them. It would have been far easier to just go ahead and pay the entire

subrogation Fanners at that time, but Respondent felt obligated to act in the best interests of

client which meant that Respondent needed to dispute the subrogation claim. Respondent had

already been paid, so there was absolutely no benefit for Respondent to take his time and go

through the trouble to do this. Client also advised Respondent that the Fanners adjustor told her

they never received a rep letter from Respondent. This was calumny at its worst, since a rep

ANSWER- of 34

letter had been faxed to Farmers on October 16, 2007. The adjustor then utilized this fabrication

to justify her calling client directly.

76. Respondent admits receiving the fax from Ms. Frazee as alleged in paragraph 124,

but cannot admit or deny anything regarding her intent or state of mind. Regarding these

allegations, Respondent states as follows: Fanners had not yet received payment since they had not

agreed to the Wimsman reduction that it felt Frazee was entitled to. As stated in # 116 above,

Respondent's staff person (Kim Hall) had mistakenly entered the subrogation amount on the

June 25, 2008 settlement letter as having been paid since the form requires accounting of all

receipts, costs, and disbursements. The staff person entered the subrogation amounts in the

fonnat that it is usually entered without noting that the liability carrier had not yet released the

disputed subrogation amount to either party. The sheet should have reflected this, but the staff

person incorrectly assumed that the subrogation had already been paid directly to Fanners.

(Since that time, Respondent has modified the settlement letter so the default position assumes

that there is a disputed subrogation on every claim. Respondent now must to intentionally

delete the disputed subrogation language rather than add it.) Fanners knew that Respondent had

not received the disputed subrogation amount since they had been in communication with Allied

and had also attempted to get Allied to send the money directly to them.

77. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 125. ln this respect,

Respondent avers as follows: Fanners wanted Respondent to fax them a letter after this phone

conversation agreeing that they could still collect the entire subrogation amount, but Respondent

did not agree to this since the entire conversation was vague and the adjustor did not, make any

absolute promises as to what Fanners was agreeing to do once they received the payment.

Respondent felt that the adjustor was not committing to Wensman fees and was still attempting

to gain control over the entire subrogation.

ANSWER- of 34

78. Respondent denies the allegations ofFanner's agent Jo Bayliss in paragraph 126

and avers in this regard as follows: After all the torturous interaction with Farmers over the course

of nearly six months, Fanners October 3, 2008letter is the first time they conceded Wensman fees to

their insured. Whereas Respondent is not sure specifically what Farmers claims Respondent

allegedly "promised" to fax, to Farmers, Respondent certainly did not promise to agree to their

terms or "promise" them anything. As between Farmers and Respondent, it was well known

what was involved, what the amount was, and what the dispute was over it was simple. On

October 1, 2008 Farmers wanted Respondent to agree that the entire subrogation amount could

be paid to Fanners for them to (maybe) disburse and she wanted something in writing, if such

was the case. Respondent did not agree to those tenns in the telephone conversation with her on

October 1, 2008 so there was no follow up writing. Respondent cannot imagine what alleged

"promise" was made, since there was nothing more to give Fanners. The October 3, 2008 letter

also does not otherwise state what the content of this communication from Respondent was

supposed to be. In Fanners letter dated October 3, 2008, they requested a signature if the tenns

were agreed to, however Respondent had already disagreed with these terms on October 1,

2008. The dispute was never over the issue of who was entitled to the money from the

subrogation reduction since this was clearly entirely the client's. That was never part of the

discussion. The dispute was always regarding Farmers refusal to acknowledge any Wensman

fees.

79. Respondent admits that the Allied check was received on October 17, 2008, as

alleged in paragraph 127. In this respect Respondent avers and states as follows: "The check was

deposited on November 25, 2008. In am not sure why the delay in the deposit except that I was

in Germany for an extended period of time (September/October- I will verify dates) and then my

"surrogate" father died on October 26, 2008 (my dad was gone much of the time when I was in

ANSWER- of 34

Berlin he was often in the east block doing whatever his group did over there. He asked this

family friend to watch over me during his frequent absences and he was like a father to me)."

80. Respondent admits as alleged in paragraph 128 only that the letter was

received from Farmers. In this respect Respondent avers as follows: This Farmers letter was sent

despite the fact that a rep letter was sent to Farmers a year earlier on October 16, 2007 and they

refused to reduce the subrogation for over a year. The delay in the subrogation dispute resolution

was entirely due to Farmers not agreeing to Wensman reduction until a year later- October 3,

2008 and then their calculations were incorrect. This delay caught Respondent out of the

Country attending to personal matters as described above paragraph 127, which resulted on a

relatively short subsequent delay.

81. Respondent admits that said letter as described in paragraph 129 was

received. The check was received at Respondent's office on the afternoon of October 17, 2008.

Farmers mailed a letter, presumably on October 22, 2008 (logically this letter would have been

drafted in the am of October 22, 2008 to get in that days mail. Farmers threatened Respondent

with a Bar complaint ifhe did not respond by October 27,2008. This impact of this overly

aggressive conduct of Farmer's is described by Respondent as follows: "Whenever I make a

deposit, I do it on my way home from the office. Even if I had deposited in on the following

business day (Monday, October 20, 2008), it would have been after 5pm on my way home. It

would have been posted at my bank the following day. This process of a check clearing (had it

been deposited on October 20, 2008 after 5 pm) would not have allowed Allied or Farmers to

even know whether or not it was deposited the morning of October 22, 2008. Farmers letter of

October 22, 2008 is a good indication of an over-aggressive adjustor simply looking for a fight

after she delayed resolution of the subrogation for nearly a year by not agreeing to the

appropriate Wensman fees. Consider this- Farmers delays resolution of the subro for a year, and

ANSWER- of 34

User

Typewritten Text

then threatens me with a bar complaint 1.5 days after the earliest I could have deposited the

check. There is something very seriously wrong about this pattern of behavior by Bayliss at

Farmers and this pattern goes all the way to at least March, 2008. The fact that she disregarded

the rep letter and lied to the client is a further indication of this. She aggressively misrepresented

facts to client to perpetuate her incorrect position regarding the subrogation. I was notified

about my friends death on the day Farmers was demanding a response, October 27, 2008. The

funeral was the next week."

82. Respondent admits the allegations set forth in paragraph I 30. In this respect,

Respondent avers as follows: Much of the manipulation by Farmers is the misperception of

Respondent's not responding to their phone calls when it was really more specifically my not

responding to Farmers every demand to pay the full subrogation and every phone call during

which Bayliss continuously refused to agree to a Wensman reduction. Respondent describes this

interplay with Farmers as follows: "Bayliss certainly called my office more often thau I called

her; however, her communications until early October, 2008 were restatements of her refusal to

reduce the subrogation. Moreover as described above, I was still working on severe health issues

during this time. I simply could not call Farmers back every time she called repeatedly stating

they still had not changed their position, just so I could confirm that I still disagreed with their

position regarding full subrogation. It was not until the letter from Farmers received on October

16, 2008 that they appeared to agree with the reduction. I feel that much of Bayliss's

disproportionate aggression towards me was that it was retaliatory in nature, because I had not

rolled over aud agreed to Farmer's full subrogation. The threat of a bar complaint was how she

was venting her frustration- not because of the delay that was in fact at her feet - but rather for

the fact she did not get her way in this matter.".

ANSWER- of 34

83. Respondent admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 131. As stated above,

Respondent was out of the country for an extended period ofthne and then returned only to have to

leave the state for a funeral.

84. Respondent admits only that the 11-17-08letter was received and denies the

remainder of the allegations in paragraph 132. Respondent avers Frazee did receive a response

regarding her inquires. Debbie smith responded to Frazee's letter the next day with a full

description of the subrogation dispute. Likewise, there was no failure on Respondent's part to

advise Allied that the release of funds directly to Farmers would have defeated Respondent's

attempt to obtain a subrogation reduction for Frazee. The issue of the disbursement being

"complete" is explained in 116. Frazee knew of the ongoing dispute since both Farmers and my

staff were communicating with her. .

85. Respondent admits that Debbie Smith faxed Frazee said letter on November 18,

2008, as described in paragraph 133 ..

86. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 134, except Respondent

denies the allegation regarding Fraszee's contact with Bayliss, because Respondent lack

information sufficient admit or deny that Frazee contacted Farmers.

87. Respondent does not have sufficient infom1ation to either admit or deny the

allegations contained in paragraph 135 that Farmers sent Frazee said letter.

88. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 136. In this respect,

Respondent avers as follows: The first check was issued on December 1, 2008. Once Respondent

was notified that this was not received (January 28, 2009), a check was re-issued the same day to

Farmers. Respondent did not trust that Bayliss, after all her manipulations, would finally accept

the reduced subrogation without her raising some other issue. Client was infonned she would

get her balance once Respondent knew Fanners cashed the check.

ANSWER- of 34

89. Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 13 7 ..


91. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 139, as follows:

Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 139 for the same reasons as set forth

hereinabove in Respondent's answer to paragraph 33 of the Complaint. Respondent hereby

petitions the bar for an evaluation under Rule 515 (c) to determine past and I or present incapacity

to practice law and to establish any limitations, if any, in that regard. . In addition with regard to the

charges under the specific Rule against Respondent's conduct described in paragraphs 115 through

13 8, Respondent alleges as follows:

1.2 Failure to pursue client objectives: The opposite of this is true. Respondent settled claim per

client agreement. Respondent paid provider balances once the final accounting was complete and

the final amounts disclosed. Client misrepresented the nature of the medical services. After she

signed the settlement letter, she falsely claimed the charges were for lab work unrelated to the

car collision in an attempt to avoid paying for those services out of the settlement proceeds.

1.3 Diligence: It was in fact Respondent's diligence and persistence that obtained the

subrogation reduction from Fanners to the benefit of the Client, as described above. Respondent

did the best he could do regarding the finalization of the subrogation reduction in

October/November 2008 between being out of the country and gone for a funeral during the

relevant time period. The Respondent's delays were minor, particularly when compared to the

year long delay by Farmers. There was nothing Respondent could do regarding the Dr.

Radnovich check. Respondent paid the balance to the client as per her agreement when she

signed the settlement agreement letter. Respondent received the check back on July I 0, 2008.

Dr. Radnovich's office did not give Respondent the correct balance until Augnst 28, 2008 and

Respondent paid corrected balance to Dr. Radanovich same day and balance to client

ANSWER- of 34

immediately thereafter. First client lied about the nature of Dr. R's services and then

Respondent pursued a hotly debated subrogation reduction for client that only she benefited from

and this resulted in a bar complaint against Respondent. Respondent strongly believe that, if

client thinks I "did not pursue her objectives," then she MUST return the money to Farmers that

represents the subro reduction that only she benefited from and that she is now complaining

about. This is imperative since if obtaining this subro reduction was "not pursuing her

objectives," then the converse must be true- that not attempting to obtain the subro reduction

would meet her objectives. She should give the money back then. It is inappropriate that the

client should be allowed to misrepresent about the medical services, complain about the

subrogation reduction efforts that Respondent was not even obligated to undertake, and then ·

obtain the benefit of his diligence, and then finish this all with a bar complaint against

Respondent.

1.4 Communication:

Respondent did not collapse to Farmers demands to pay full subrogation. If Respondent's

failure to communicate is defined by his failure to call Farmers every time they wanted

Respondent to cave in on the subrogation , then the claim is valid. However, the end result is

what should define the communication issue- Farmers failed to communicate the demand upon

them to reduce the subrogation appropriately until October 16, 2008. Farmers refused to respond

to the demands to reduce the subrogation. Had Farmers communicated to Respondent the proper

response earlier, this would not have dragged out for months. No amount of Respondent's

communicating with them when the communications were one sided would have changed the

outcome. The primary issue here is not Respondent's failure to communicate, but the refusal of

Respondent to communicate what Farmers wanted him to say.

1.15 Failure to promptly deliver funds to client and third party.

ANSWER- of 34

Funds from the first money received (June 13, 2008) was delivered as promptly as practical

(June 27, 2008). This subro debate began in October 2007. Farmers did not clearly agree to the

subro reduction until in the letter received on October 16, 2008. The only issue here was that

Respondent's staff did not give me the check until on or around November 25, 2008 when it was

received at my office on October 17, 2008. Respondent promptly deposited it once it was in my

hands and he sent Farmers a check on December I, 2008. Respondent reissued the check to

Farmers (notified them accordingly) on January 28, 2009 when Respondent was informed that

they had not received it and sent client the balance on February 5, 2009. The client check was a

week later since Respondent wanted Farmers check first cashed as an accord and satisfaction.

Bayliss/Farmers made unreasonable demands for payment after she intentionally delayed

resolution of the subrogation for a year hoping that we would cave in to her.

Respondent wrote off the costs at the first distribution although it was not necessary that

Respondent do so.

1.15 Failure to distribute undisputed funds:

There is nothing to explain here. There is no basis to this since client lied about the treatment

expenses with Dr. R resulting in those expenses being disputed. I caunot be held accountable of

the incorrect balance given by Dr. R which was not corrected until August 28, 2008.

8.44 Misrepresentation:

There is no basis for this. To the contrary it was the Client who misrepresented the purpose for

which medical costs were generated in Dr. Radnovich's. Moreover it was Ms. Bayliss at

Farmers who misrepresented to client that no rep letter had been sent in 2007 with the objective

of creating an excuse to communicate with our client notwithstanding the rep letter. Bayliss

actively engaged in manipulative behavior and misrepresented facts to client in an effort to

obtain the full subrogation amount despite the Wensman doctrine.

ANSWER- of 34

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing allegations, averments, admissions and denials

that judgment be entered in favor Respondent and that this action be dismissed; or in the

alternative if judgment be rendered against Respondent that judgment be entered allowing

proceedings to under Rule 515 (c) to detennine the degree of current or potential incapacity of

Respondent and to determine under what conditions he may pursue the practice of law given a

finding of disability that impairs or threatens to impair his professional capacity.

DATED this 12'h day of July, 2010

RUNFT & STEELE LAW OFFICES, PLLC

ttomey for Plaintiffs

ANSWER- of 34

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 12111 day of July 2010, a true and correct copy of the foregoing ANSWER, was served upon opposing counsel as follows:

Brad Andrews Idaho State Bar PO Box 895 Boise, ID 83701

ANSWER· of 34

_}{_US Mail __ Personal Delivery

Facsimile

RUNFT & STEELE LAW OFFICES, PLLC

By:•--4'...!!11~!L_~~~L_Jo At

unft mey for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

-(}:;)___ ~ ) I hereby ceJtify that on the /l/ day of l..t._Q,l , 2010, I served a true and correct

copy of the foregoing ANSWER by depositin!:e sa: in the U.S. mail at Boise, Idaho, each

enclosed in a separate, sealed, stamped envelope, and addressed as directed as follows:

John L. Runft Attorney at Law 1020 W. Main Street, Suite 400 Boise, ID 83702

Joel P. Hazel, Chairman Professional Conduct Board 608 Northwest Blvd., Ste. 300 Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814

Ron. Robelt J. Caldwell Professional Conduct Board P.O. Box 9000 Coeur d'Alene, ID 83816-9000

Sarah T. Hope Professional Conduct Board 154 Keyhole Drive Jerome, ID 83338

Sue Nelson Clerk of the Professional Conduct Board

I further ceJtify that I served a true and correct copy of the aforesaid document(s) upon Bar Counsel/Deputy Bar Counsel for the Idaho State Bar by personally delivering said copy to Office of Bar Counsel at the Idaho State Bar, 525 W. Jefferson, Boise, Idaho.

bryan scott storer boise idaho attorney answer on july 13 2010 to formal complaint fc 10-04 dated...

Documents

complaint file

mail log

allegations of paragraphsi

phone logs

runft isb

respondents response

answer pageiof

steele isb