Opinion
PR 23-0274
05-16-2023
IN THE MATTER OF SUZANNE C. MARSHALL, An Attorney at Law, Respondent.
Pamela D. Bucy Chief Disciplinary Counsel
Supreme Court Cause No. ODC File No. 21-107
Pamela D. Bucy Chief Disciplinary Counsel
COMPLAINT
Rules 1.3,1.4 and 3.2, MRPC
By leave of the Commission on Practice granted on April 20,2023, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel for the State of Montana (ODC), hereby charges Suzanne C. Marshall with professional misconduct as follows:
General Allegations
1. Suzanne C. Marshall, hereinafter referred to as Respondent, was admitted to the practice of law in the State of Montana in 1994, at which time Respondent took the oath required for admission, wherein she agreed to abide by the Rules of Professional Conduct, the Disciplinary Rules adopted by the Supreme Court, and the highest standards of honesty, justice and morality, including but not limited to, those outlined in parts 3 and 4 of Chapter 61, Title 37, Montana Code Annotated.
2. The Montana Supreme Court has approved and adopted the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC), governing the ethical conduct of attorneys licensed to practice in the State of Montana, which Rules were in effect at all times mentioned in this Complaint.
3. Respondent was previously disciplined in 2000 and again in 2020.
Count One
4. ODC realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 3 of the General Allegations as if fully restated in this Count One.
5. Adam Poulos (Poulos) had a previous romantic relationship with T.B.D. which ended in approximately October 2020. T.B.D. subsequently had a child bom March 2021, and Poulos believed the child to be his. Poulos repeatedly contacted T.B.D. and her family with his assertions and as a result, T.B.D. filed a pro se Petition for Temporary Order of Protection and Request for Hearing before Gallatin County District Court on April 9, 2021. A Temporary Order of Protection (TRO) was entered against Poulos on April 12, 2021, and a hearing was set for April 20, 2021.
6. On or about April 14, Poulos retained Respondent to represent him as to the TRO and to establish paternity of the minor child, and paid Respondent a $1,500 retainer.
7. Respondent filed a Petition to Establish Paternity of a Minor Child and to Enter Parenting Plan Upon Establishment of Paternity on April 16 and the District Court subsequently entered an Order vacating the April 20 hearing and extending the TRO.
8. T.B.D., now through counsel, filed her Answer to Petition to Establish Paternity of a Minor Child and Cross Motion to Dismiss on May 10. On June 1, the District Court entered an Order Dismissing Petition to Establish Paternity of a Minor Child. Then, on June 3, the District Court issued another Order regarding the pending TRO. T.B.D. filed a Motion to Set a Hearing on the TRO, which the District Court granted. The hearing was set for July 9.
9. Respondent failed to notify Poulos his Petition had been dismissed or advise him of the July 9 hearing.
10. On July 1, a staff member of T.B.D.'s counsel emailed a Stipulation of No Contact to Respondent for Poulos' consideration. Respondent failed to notify Poulos of the Stipulation.
11. On July 8, the parties filed an Unopposed Motion to Vacate the Hearing on Petition for Temporary Order of Protection, based upon the proposed Stipulation. Respondent failed to notify Poulos of the Motion or that she had agreed to vacate the hearing.
12. By Respondent's conduct outlined above, constitutes violations of Rules 1.3, Diligence and 3.2, Expediting Litigation, MRPC.
Count Two
13. ODC realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 3 of the General Allegations and paragraphs 4 through 12 as if fully restated in this Count Two.
14. Poulos contacted Respondent inquiring as to the status of his matter, and though Respondent replied, she failed to inform him that his Petition to Establish Paternity had been dismissed or further inform him of the July 9 hearing.
15. Respondent failed to notify Poulos of opposing counsel's proposed stipulation, or that the July 9 hearing had been vacated, though Poulos was regularly inquiring as to the status of his matter.
16. Respondent advised opposing counsel she had family medical complications and would not be in the office but failed to communicate this information to Poulos.
17. Poulos discovered the status of his matter through the District Court, contacted opposing counsel directly, and subsequently terminated Respondent's services.
18. By the conduct outlined above, Respondent violated Rule 1.4, Communication, MRPC. WHEREFORE, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel prays:
1. That a Citation be issued to the Respondent, to which shall be attached a copy of the complaint, requiring Respondent, within twenty-one (21) days after service thereof, to file a written answer to the complaint;
2. That a formal hearing be had on the allegations of this complaint before an Adjudicatory Panel of the Commission;
3. That the Adjudicatory Panel of the Commission make a report of its findings and recommendations after a formal hearing to the Montana Supreme Court, and, in the event the Adjudicatory Panel finds the facts warrant disciplinary action and recommends discipline, that the Commission also recommend the nature and extent of appropriate disciplinary action, including an award of costs and expenses incurred in investigating and prosecuting this matter; and, 4. For such other and further relief as deemed necessary and proper.