funds to his new trust account, however, he transferred them to his
operating account. Mr. Busch failed
to respond to the State Bar’s requests
for information. In addition, he
kept an excessive balance of administrative funds in the trust account.
In No. 14-1981, Citywide Capital Investment Group, Inc. (CCIG)
hired Mr. Busch to act as an escrow
agent regarding a contract. CCIG
hired Midwest Consulting Services,
LLC (MCS) to assist it in obtaining
a SBLC. CCIG agreed to pay a
service fee of $275,000 to MCS
for obtaining a $10,000,000 SBLC.
CCIG provided Mr. Busch the
$275,000 and he deposited it into
his trust account. Mr. Busch received
$48,000 of these funds for his fee.
Busch distributed the remaining
funds in his trust account to MCS
even though the SBLC that it
allegedly obtained for CCIG was
fraudulent.
In No. 14-3148, Mr. Busch acted as an escrow agent for Kapacke
Mining Company (Kapacke). Darcy
Allen loaned Kapacke $100,000
so that Kapacke could obtain an
SBLC. Specifically, Ms. Allen wired
$100,000 to Busch’s trust account.
After she wired the funds, Mr. Busch
stopped communicating with her.
Kapacke never received the SBLC,
and Mr. Busch never returned the
$100,000 to Ms. Allen. Mr. Busch
failed to completely respond to the
State Bar’s requests for information.
Mr. Busch violated Rule 42,
ARIZ.R.S.CT., ERs 1. 1, 1. 2(a), 1. 3,
1. 4(a), 1. 4(b), 1. 15(a), 1. 15(d),
8. 1(a), 8. 1(b), 8. 4(c), and 8. 4(d);
and Rules 43(a), 43(b)( 1)(A), 43(b)
( 2)(B), 43(b)( 2)(C), and 54(d),
ARIZ.R.S.CT.
JAMES R. ECKLEY
Bar No. 010854; File No. 15-1846
PDJ No. 2016-9133
By order of the presiding disciplinary
judge dated Jan. 20, 2017, James R.
Eckley, Phoenix, was reprimanded
for violating the rules of professional
conduct. Mr. Eckley will be placed
on probation for 18 months. He
was assessed $1,200 in costs and expenses for the disciplinary proceeding.
During the State Bar’s review of
Mr. Eckley’s client trust account,
two sets of client ledgers showed
that certain client accounts had carried negative balances beginning in
2011. Other errors were uncovered;
for example, two checks were outstanding, one from 2010 and the
other from 2011. Because of the
Bar examiner’s review of the documents provided by Mr. Eckley, it
was concluded one employee who
handled the trust accounts was not
adequately trained by Mr. Eckley
and another employee adequately
trained had been negligent. Mr.
Eckley was negligent in maintaining
adequate internal controls to safeguard client funds, his accounting
staff did not properly maintain
accounting ledgers regarding some
clients and a disbursement was made
without funds in the account to
cover it.
Aggravating factors include:
four prior disciplinary offenses and
Mr. Eckley’s substantial experience
in the practice of law.
Mitigating factors include: the
absence of dishonest or selfish motive, timely good faith effect to rectify the consequences of the misconduct, the full and free disclosure
to the State Bar and cooperative
attitude towards the proceedings and
remoteness of prior offenses.
Mr. Eckley’s misconduct was
negligent and there was potential
harm to his clients. Mr. Eckley violated Rule 42, ER 1. 15 and Rule
43, ARIZ.R.S.CT.
PATRICK K. GREENE
Bar No. 022881; File No. 15-3221
PDJ No. 2017-9003
By final judgement and order dated
Feb. 1, 2017, the presiding disciplinary judge accepted an agreement for discipline by consent by
which Patrick K. Greene, Tombstone, Ariz., was reprimanded and
placed on probation for one year. As
probation Mr. Greene shall participate in the State Bar’s Law Office
Management Assistance Program,
attend the bar’s half-day Trust
Account Ethics Enhancement Program, and pay $200 plus interest in
restitution to the opposing party in
underlying litigation. Mr. Greene
also was assessed the costs of the
proceedings totaling $1,200.
In 2014, Mr. Greene was hired
to represent a client who admitted
owing debts to the creditor/com-
plainant. Mr. Greene admitted his
client owed the debts in correspon-
dence, but after his client failed to
pay, the creditor brought two sepa-
rate lawsuits, one in justice court
and one in superior court on related
but separate debts. In the justice
court action, Mr. Greene delayed
the creditor’s eventual default judg-
ment when he first asserted to the
court that his client was not prop-
erly served, although he knew his
client had been served, and when he
tried to contest the admitted debt.
In the superior court action, Mr.
Greene filed an answer denying his
client owed the debts and caused
the creditor to incur costs and fees
to litigate a debt his client admitted
owing. After the parties settled the
superior court action, Mr. Greene
collected money from his client in-
tended for the creditor, but failed to
timely pay the debt due to trust ac-
count errors and failure to adhere to
trust accounting standards.
The lone aggravating factor was
substantial experience in the practice of law.
Mitigating factors were absence
of prior disciplinary record, absence
of a dishonest or selfish motive, and
character and reputation in the community.
Mr. Greene violated Rule 42,
ARIZ.R.S.CT., ERs 1. 15(a), 1. 15(d),
3. 1, 3. 2, and 3. 3(a)( 1); and Rules
43(a), (b), and (f), ARIZ.R.S.CT.
JAMAL A. HARRISON
Bar No. 017262; File Nos. 15-0857, 15-
0930, 14-0715, 16-0037-AP
PDJ No. 2016-9008
On April 22, 2016, a discipline
hearing panel rendered its decision
suspending Jamal A. Harrison,
Scottsdale, for one year, ordering
him to pay $7,673 in restitution to
his client in Count 1 and $3,600 to
his client in Count 2, and ordering
that Mr. Harrison is to be placed on
probation upon reinstatement with
the length and terms to be determined at his reinstatement hearing.
Mr. Harrison also was assessed
$6,000 for the costs of the disciplinary proceedings. He filed an
appeal on May 9, 2016, but missed
his extended deadline to file an
opening brief. He filed the brief late
but did not serve the State Bar or
otherwise notify it of the filing. On
Jan. 4, 2017, the Supreme Court
granted the State Bar’s motion to
strike Mr. Harrison’s opening brief,
dismissed the appeal, and ordered
that the hearing panel’s decision was
final.
In Count 1, Mr. Harrison was
hired to help a client get court-ordered paternity and legal decision
making authority over his child.
Mr. Harrison filed the initial petition which consisted of a fill-in-the-blank self-help form provided on the
Superior Court’s web page. Thereafter, he failed to file a responsive
pleading and a proposed order as
directed by the Court, failed to
communicate with his client, failed
to return messages, and failed to
provide an accounting after he was
terminated. The client was forced to
hire another attorney to complete
the case.
In Count 2, Mr. Harrison was
hired to represent a client in a civil
action against a government agency,
an employee of the agency, and a
third party. Mr. Harrison failed to
adequately communicate with his
client, failed to comply with discovery deadlines despite receiving multiple extensions, and failed to timely
file responsive pleadings which resulted in dismissal of the claim against the third party. Mr. Harrison’s
interactions with his client outside
court were unprofessional, ranging
from cussing and shouting to demanding that his client personally deliver cash payments prior to
scheduled payment dates.
In Count 3, Mr. Harrison was
hired to represent a client in various
federal actions against individuals
and corporations. Mr. Harrison failed to timely write the demand letter
his client requested, and provided
an initial draft of the complaint approximately 30 days after he promised it.
In all counts the State Bar granted Mr. Harrison numerous extensions of time within which to respond to the charges but ultimately
he failed to respond to the State
Bar’s requests for information.
Aggravating factors include prior
disciplinary offenses, a pattern of
misconduct, multiple offenses, bad
faith obstruction of the disciplinary
proceedings, refusal to acknowledge
the wrongful nature of the conduct,
vulnerability of the victim, and indifference to making restitution.
Mr. Harrison violated Rule
41(g), ARIZ.R.S.CT.; Rule 42, ARIZ.
R.S.CT., ERs 1. 2, 1. 3, 1. 4, 1. 5,
1. 16, 3. 2, 3. 4, 8. 1, and 8. 4(d); and
Rule 54, ARIZ.R.S.CT.
LAWYER REGULATION
