In the Matter of William J. Downey

SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA
In the Matter of a Member of the ) Arizona Supreme Court
State Bar of Arizona, ) No. SB-02-0124-D
)
) Disciplinary Commission
) Nos. 00-0429
WILLIAM J. DOWNEY, ) 00-1469
Bar No. 007379, ) 00-2058
)
) AMENDED
) MEMORANDUM DECISION
Respondent.) AND ORDER
) (Not for Publication
) Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111)
REVIEW FROM DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
REMANDED
KIMERER & DERRICK Phoenix
by Michael D. Kimerer
and Holly R. Gieszl
Attorneys for Respondent
STATE BAR OF ARIZONA Phoenix
by Robert B. Van Wyck, Chief Bar Counsel
and James D. Lee, Senior Bar Counsel
Attorneys for State Bar of Arizona
BRYAN CAVE, L.L.P. Phoenix
by Mark I. Harrison
and Dawn R. Sinclair
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
B E R C H, Justice
¶1 On January 9, 2003, this court heard oral argument
regarding the appropriate discipline to impose upon Respondent
William J. Downey. Respondent had been found by a hearing officer
of the State Bar to have violated the Rules of Professional Conduct
by failing to hold the property of clients or others associated
with his representation of clients separate from his personal and
business funds, failing to promptly and accurately record all trust
account transactions, failing to promptly deliver to third persons
funds they were entitled to receive, failing to maintain and
preserve trust records, failing to observe the Supreme Court’s
Trust Account Guidelines, failing to use internal controls to
safeguard the funds held in trust, failing to maintain appropriate
trust records, and failing to respond promptly and completely to
State Bar inquiries. The charges against Respondent stemmed from
his commingling of personal and client funds in his trust account
and his use of his trust account as a source from which to pay
personal and business expenses. Some acts were deemed to be
knowing rather than negligent because they continued to occur after
Respondent had been educated through consultation with a Law Office
Management Assistance Program representative to learn about trust
account responsibilities. This conduct was found to have violated
Rule 42, Ariz. R. Sup. Ct., ER 1.15(a) and (b), ER 8.1(b), Rule
43(a) and (d)(1.a, 1.c, 1.d, 1.e, 2.b, 2.c, 2.d, and 2.f), Rule
44(a) and (b)(4), and Rule 51(h) and (i). The hearing officer
recommended, among other things, that Respondent be suspended from
the practice of law for six months.
-2-
¶2 The members of the disciplinary commission adopted the
hearing officer’s findings, but reduced the sanction from a six-
month to a three-month suspension.
¶3 At oral argument before this court, it was revealed that
new evidence was available that the parties acknowledged might bear
on the appropriate disposition of these charges and other charges
pending against the Respondent.
¶4 In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the interests
of justice require that this matter be remanded to the hearing
officer for further proceedings. In the interim, Respondent will
be placed on suspension from the practice of law, pending final
determination of discipline. Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 52(c) (allowing
interim suspension by court). We base the imposition of interim
suspension upon the showing on the record that Respondent “appears
to be . . . engaging in conduct the continuation of which will
result in substantial harm, loss or damage to the public, the legal
profession or the administration of justice.” Id. § (c)(1).
Therefore,
¶5 IT IS ORDERED that Respondent William J. Downey is hereby
placed on interim suspension from the practice of law.
¶6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that such suspension shall continue
in effect until further order of this court.
-3-
¶7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED remanding this matter to a hearing
officer for further proceedings.
DATED this 10th day of January, 2003.
Rebecca White Berch, Justice
CONCURRING:
Charles E. Jones, Chief Justice
Michael D. Ryan, Justice
-4-