80 ARIZONA ATTORNEY JULY/AUGUST 2017 www.azbar.org/AZAttorney
CAUTION! Nearly 17,000 attorneys are eligible to
practice law in Arizona. Many attorneys share the
same names. All discipline reports should be read
carefully for names, addresses and Bar numbers.
State Bar’s Law Office Management Assistance
Program (LOMAP). He was also assessed the
costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceeding.
Mr. Smith represented a client in a criminal mat-
ter for a flat fee of $6,500. Thereafter, he failed to
adequately communicate with and diligently rep-
resent the client by failing to appear for scheduled
court hearings and notify his client of the hear-
ings. His repeated failures induced the court to
issue two separate bench warrants for his client.
Mr. Smith succeeded in quashing the bench war-
rants and refunded $6,500 to the client.
Aggravating factors: prior disciplinary offenses, multiple offenses, and substantial experience
in the practice of law.
Mitigating factors: absence of dishonest or
selfish motive, full and free disclosure to the State
Bar, and remorse.
Mr. Smith violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT.,
ERs 1. 3, 1. 4, 3. 4(c), and 8. 4(d).
LYNDON B. STEIMEL
Bar No. 011733; File Nos. 16-2038, 16-2311
PDJ No. 2017-9005
By judgment of disbarment dated May 23, 2017,
the presiding disciplinary judge accepted a consent to disbarment by which Lyndon B. Steimel,
Scottsdale, AZ, was disbarred immediately. Mr.
Steimel also was ordered to pay the State Bar’s
costs and expenses of $1,200.
In the first of the two underlying matters, Mr.
Steimel abandoned a client’s appeal of a justice
court ruling, leading to the dismissal of the client’s
case. Mr. Steimel failed to notify the client of the
dismissal and failed to return the client’s phone
calls following the dismissal. When the client
eventually reached Mr. Steimel and requested a
refund, Mr. Steimel indicated that he would
think about it. However, he failed to follow up
regarding the refund request.
In the second underlying matter, Mr. Steimel
represented a client in a bankruptcy case. Mr.
Steimel stopped communicating with the client
for three months. In filing the client’s bankruptcy
petition, he made numerous errors. When the client confronted Mr. Steimel about the errors, Mr.
Steimel insisted that the client sign the petition.
The bankruptcy court ultimately disgorged part
of Mr. Steimel’s fee as a result of deficiencies in
BARRY S. WAGNER
Bar No. 022745; File No. 15-3310
PDJ No. 2017-9038
By final judgment and order dated April 14,
2017, the presiding disciplinary judge accepted
an agreement for discipline by consent by which
Barry S. Wagner, Phoenix, was reprimanded and
placed on probation for two years. As probation,
Mr. Wagner shall participate in the State Bar’s
Law Office Management Assistance Program and
attend the bar’s half-day Trust Account Ethics
Enhancement Program. Mr. Wagner also was
assessed the costs of the proceedings totaling
Mr. Wagner represented two clients in a personal injury matter. He settled the cases and
deposited the settlement funds into his trust
account in April 2015. The clients asked Mr.
Wagner about the status of the liens in mid-2015
but he failed to satisfy all liens until January
2016. Mr. Wagner believed that he settled all the
liens, even though two liens remained outstanding. He also over-disbursed funds to these clients,
which resulted in the conversion of other client
funds held in his trust account. Mr. Wagner’s
records demonstrated 35 instances in which he
over-disbursed to clients or third parties, and
deposited administrative funds to make the
IOLTA whole. Mr. Wagner failed to maintain
adequate internal controls to safeguard client and
third-party funds, failed to provide an adequate
equivalent of a general or checkbook ledger,
failed to maintain contemporaneous client ledgers, failed to perform a proper three-way reconciliation, and failed to maintain adequate duplicate
The sole aggravating factor was a pattern of
Mitigating factors: absence of prior disciplinary record, absence of a dishonest or selfish
motive, and full and full and free disclosure to
disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward
Mr. Wagner violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT.,
ERs 1. 15(a), 1. 15(d), and 1. 15(e), and Rules
43(b)( 1)(A), 43(b)( 1)(B), 43(b)( 1)(C), 43(b)
( 2)(A), 43(b)( 2)(B), 43(b)( 2)(C), and 43(b)( 2)
JAMES ROGER WOOD
Bar No. 018948; File Nos. 15-1077, 15-1746, 15-
1793, 15-1853, 15-1968, 15-2758, 15-3331, 15-
PDJ No. 2016-9132
By order dated, filed, and effective Feb. 24,
2017, the presiding disciplinary judge accepted
the consent to disbarment of James Roger Wood,
Mesa, Ariz. Mr. Wood’s name was stricken from
the roll of lawyers and he is no longer entitled
to the rights and privileges of a lawyer, but he
remains subject to the jurisdiction of the court.
Pursuant to the order, no further disciplinary
action shall be taken regarding the matters that
are the subject of the charges upon which the
consent to disbarment and the judgment of disbarment were based. Mr. Wood was ordered to
pay the State Bar’s costs and expenses in the
amount of $2,299.
On Dec. 30, 2016, the State Bar of Arizona
filed a formal complaint against Mr. Wood alleging that he had violated numerous ethical rules in
the course of representing clients, as well as in the
operation of his trust account.
The complaint included allegations that Mr.
Wood failed to provide competent representation;
coming up in
State Bar member
Technology + tools
To advertise in Arizona Attorney
Magazine, contact Mikyeila Cordero,
(602) 340-7306 or email