Mr. Schollian intentionally made false statements to the court that his mother had passed
away to cover up the fact that he wished to go
to Pennsylvania to deal with the death of someone who was not actually a family member. Mr.
Schollian also failed to provide the court with
information he was ordered to produce regarding his statements.
Mr. Schollian intentionally made false statements to the State Bar about the Martin Perel
Law Firm and his involvement with the firm.
While Mr. Schollian served as the firm’s managing attorney for approximately nine months,
he failed to exercise the necessary and appropriate supervision and oversight to prevent a
non-lawyer and a suspended-lawyer from preying on clients.
Mr. Scholian violated Rule 42,
ARIZ.R.S.CT., specifically ERs 3. 3(a)( 1),
3. 4(c), 4. 1(a), 5. 1, 5. 3, 8. 1(a) and (b), and
8. 4(c) and (d), and Rule 54(c), ARIZ.R.S.CT.
JEFFREY P. SQUITIERI
Bar No. 014900
PDJ No. 2015-9021
On Nov. 20, 2013, Jeffrey P. Squitieri was
disbarred by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Respondent misappropriated client funds in
violation of Rule 1. 15(a) and was disbarred for
his conduct. The New Jersey Supreme Court
submitted its final order with the Office of the
Presiding Disciplinary Judge. A reciprocal
discipline proceeding was initiated and by
Judgment and Order dated April 24, 2014,
Respondent was disbarred in Arizona.
LYNDON B. STEIMEL
Bar No. 011733; File No. 14-2197
PDJ No. 2015-9031
By judgment and order dated May 6, 2015, the
presiding disciplinary judge accepted an agreement for discipline by consent by which
Lyndon B. Steimel, Scottsdale, was reprimanded. He also was assessed the costs and expenses
of the disciplinary proceeding and placed on
probation for two years. He must participate
in the State Bar’s Law Office Management
Assistant Program and pay restitution of
$18,921.29, plus interest.
In the underlying securities matter, Mr.
Steimel filed a lawsuit beyond the statute of
limitations resulting in his client’s claims being
dismissed with prejudice. He informed the
client that he would remedy his error by filing
a new lawsuit, but failed to do so for more than
two years. During that period, he repeatedly
failed to respond to the client’s inquiries as to
when the new matter would be filed.
Mr. Steimel eventually filed a new lawsuit,
virtually identical to the original one that had
been dismissed and resulted in Rule 11 sanctions, requiring the client to pay the opposing
Local Connections. National Reach.
We Get Businesses Sold!
From Our Offices Across the U.S.
To help your client take the first step in getting top dollar for their business,
contact Jim Afinowich at email@example.com or 480-327-6610.
#1 in Ranking Arizona for 13 Consecutive Years • www.ibgfoxfin.com