Matter of A. L. MALTBY, a Member of the State Bar of Arizona.
No appearance in this Court by counsel representing either the State Bar or the respondent.
Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against respondent A. L. Maltby, a member of the State Bar of Arizona, before the Local Administrative Committee for District No. 4. There were three specific charges of misconduct and violations of the Canons of Professional Ethics, viz.:
'Charge 1: Violation of Canon 11, in that A. L. Maltby was during the
year 1948 employed by Helen Ulman as her attorney at law to seek collection of a sum of money due her from one Irving E. Fant; that pursuant to said employment he did file an action in the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona, and on December 16, 1948, by stipulation of counsel a minute entry was made granting judgment to plaintiff against defendant in the sum of $508.53, and costs; that thereafter and sometime during the year 1949, A. L. Maltby did settle said [82 Ariz. 264] matter and did receive from Irving E. Fant a sum of money in excess of $400.00 in the settlement thereof; that said money was received by A. L. Maltby in his capacity as attorney representing Helen Ulman; that A. L. Maltby did thereafter fail promptly to report and account for the money received and did commingle the same with his own funds; that A. L. Maltby has, since the time of the receipt of said money by him some time during the year 1949, refused and continued to refuse to advise his client, Helen Ulman, of the amount of money collected on her behalf and to account and pay over any portion whatsoever thereof to his said client, and still retains said money.
'Charge 2: Violation of Canon 13 in that having been employed in 1948 by Helen Ulman to collect an indebtedness due her from one Irving E. Fant, and having undertaken said employment on a contingent fee basis, and having later attempted to revise the amount of the contingent fee, the said A. L. Maltby failed and refused to have the reasonableness of said fee determined subject to the supervision of the Court.
'Charge 3. Violation of Canon 21 in that A. L. Maltby failed in his duty to his client to be concise and punctual in the disposition of the clause entitled 'Helen H. Ulman, Plaintiff, v. Irving E. Fant, Defendant, No. 60458', in this: that A. L. Maltby as attorney for plaintiff Helen Ulman, did settle said matter and did receive from the defendant Irving E. Fant a sum in excess of $400.00, which money was received some time during the year 1949, and after making settlement and receiving said money A. L. Maltby refused, continued to refuse and never has disclosed to his client, Helen Ulman, the amount of money received by him and refused, and continued to refuse, and never has answered the correspondence received by him from his client requesting information concerning the amount received by him from Irving E. Fant, and requesting a settlement therefor.'
Thereafter, the Committee issued its Order to Show Cause and set the matter for formal hearing. Upon the hearing thereof, there was introduced both oral and documentary evidence, and A. L. Maltby appeared and testified in person.
From the evidence introduced, it was the unanimous finding of the Committee that Charge 1 was proved by a preponderance of the evidence except that the specific amount of money collected by A. L. Maltby on behalf of his client, Helen Ulman, was the sum of $450 and that of said amount, he remitted to her the sum of $25.
[82 Ariz. 265] The Committee found that Charge 2 was proved by a preponderance of the evidence.
The Committee also found that Charge 3 was proved by a preponderance of the evidence except that the amount of money collected by A. L. Maltby on behalf of his client, Helen Ulman, was the sum of $450.
Upon the evidence submitted and the findings of the Committee, it was their unanimous recommendation that A. L. Maltby be disbarred.
In accordance with the rules the matter was then certified to the Board of Governors. Through its executive secretary respondent was notified of the findings and recommendations made by the Committee, but he did not avail himself of the privilege of filing any ...