Opinion
Supreme Court No. SB-07-0148-R
September 25, 2007
Disciplinary Commission No. 05-6000.
ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT
Applicant COLE DEAN SORENSON has established to the satisfaction of the Disciplinary Commission and this Court that he is qualified for reinstatement to active bar membership; now, therefore, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Rules of the Supreme Court,
IT IS ORDERED that COLE DEAN SORENSON be and hereby is reinstated as a member of the State Bar of Arizona effective the date of this Order, and is placed on probation for a period of two years, under the terms and conditions as listed below:
1) Within 30 days of the Order of Reinstatement, Applicant shall contact the Member Assistance Program Director and enter into a Memorandum of Understanding or Probation Contract that includes all terms and reporting requirements, particularly the assignment of a sobriety monitor and submission to random drug testing.
2) Within 30 days of the Order of Reinstatement, Applicant shall contact the Law Office Management Assistance Program (LOMAP) Director and enter into a Memorandum of Understanding that will include all terms and reporting requirements, particularly the assignment of an approved practice monitor, and an audit of his system practices related to ERs 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4.
3) Should Applicant decide to practice as a sole practitioner during the period of probation, he shall be required to meet with his practice monitor no less than semi-monthly; the reporting period to LOMAP by Applicant and the practice monitor shall be no less than bi-monthly; and LOMAP shall conduct an annual audit during the remainder of the probation period of Applicant's office management.
4) If engaged in the private practice of law during the period of probation, Applicant shall maintain malpractice insurance.
5) Within 30 days of the Order of Reinstatement, Applicant shall contribute $500.00 to the Arizona Bar Foundation. Upon such payment, Applicant shall be absolved from his obligation to pay restitution to Mr. Van Sickle.
This represents the amount of restitution ordered in the underlying matter that Applicant was unable to pay because he could not locate Mr. Van Sickle.
6) In the event that Applicant fails to comply with any of the foregoing conditions, and the State Bar receives information, bar counsel shall file with the Hearing Officer a Notice of Non-Compliance, pursuant to Rule 60(a)5, Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. The Hearing Officer shall conduct a hearing within thirty days after receipt of said notice, to determine whether the terms of probation have been violated and if an additional sanction should be imposed. In the event there is an allegation that any of these terms have been violated, the burden of proof shall be on the State Bar of Arizona to prove non-compliance by clear and convincing evidence.
DATED this _____ day of ________, 2007
TO:
Cole Dean Sorenson, Applicant (Certified Mail, Return Receipt and Regular Mail)
J. Scott Rhodes, Applicant's Counsel
Daniel P. Beeks, Hearing Officer 7M
Nancy Swetnam, Acting Disciplinary Clerk (Cert. Copy)
Sandra Montoya, Lawyer Regulation Records Manager, State Bar of Arizona (Cert. Copy)
Perry Thompson, Director, United States Supreme Court (Cert. Copy)
Cathy Catterson, Clerk, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Cert. Copy)
Richard Weare, Clerk, United States District Court, District of Arizona (Cert. Copy)
West Publishing Company (Jode Ottman)
Lexis-Nexis
tel