Bar Complaint Against Daniel R Warner

View More Categories

Attorney Dan Warner Bar Complaint by on Scribd

 Ethics Complaint Against: Daniel R. Warner
 SBN #026503
 Page | 13
ER 1.7 Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
ER 4.3 Dealing withUnrepresented Person
ER 8.4 Misconduct
 (d).A particularly shocking example of Warner not being a responsible attorney licensed topractice in Arizona in general involved his handling (lack thereof) of a
very real “murder”
 threat made against Rodrick. On May 22, 2013, the Firm received two very disturbingphone calls from an individual who would later be identified as Nick Maietta. The twocalls were recorded by the phone system of the Firm. Mr. Maietta is a person who hasbeen convicted of a sex offense in California and has a lifetime requirement to registeras a Sex Offender per California Statutes. He also worked as the system administrator
for the website owned by the Galvez’s, litigants in both of theRodrick cases. After the Galvez’s received an official DMCA notification for inappropriate
content found on their website, Mr. Maietta felt compelled to call the Firm and express
his planned attacks upon the Firm and Rodrick. Warner contacted the Galvez’s attorney
 Randal Hudson on May 23, 2013 in regard to the threatening phone calls via email, asthe catalyst for the phone calls had been clearly stated as involving the website owned
by the Galvez’s
. Mr. Hutson responded by stating he also had been contacted b
y “Nick”
claiming he
“was going to murder” Rodrick
, Exhibit 31).
 Any reasonable personhearing the two recordings and learning additional threats had occurred conveyingintent
to “murder” someone would take such threats as
serious and requiringimmediate attention
. As Rodrick’s legal representative and that his Firm re
ceived the
phone calls, it was Warner’s professional and ethical duty to properly protect his client
both from a legal ramification in regards to the cases but also to report the incidents tothe proper law enforcement agency. Devoid of any ethical or moral compass, Warner
did absolutely nothing. He didn’t even follow up with his email communication with Mr.Hutson who said he had a copy of the voicemail left by “Nick”. Warner’s actions
consistently demonstrate absolutely no concern for the best interest or even safety ofhis client Rodrick, only maximizing the billing hours associated with the cases.
Warner has refused to provide a complete copy of all the files associated with the twocases which he represented Rodrick for over 10 months in 2013 per ER 1.16(d). Thisrefusal has been a detriment to Rodrick and his ability to properly litigate his cases.
Even after instigating the inappropriate withdrawal and engaging in additionalmis
conduct to sabotage Rodrick’s cases, Warner was still not finish
ed with hismalpractice. He repeatedly ignored the basic requirement of supplying a previous clientwith all documents pertaining to the cases required under
ER 1.16 Declining orTerminating Representation
 (d). Numerous communications from Rodrick requestingthe immediate release and return of all materials and documents involving his case havebeen repeatedly ignored. This includes retrieval of all the information anddocumentation that had been stored using the online Basecamp application
,Exhibit 32).
To this day, Warner and the Firm have still not returned the requested andrequired documents to Rodrick and Heisig.
 Ethics Complaint Against: Daniel R. Warner
 SBN #026503
 Page | 14
An example of the important documentation that has not been released by Warner andthe Firm are the official transcripts taken of 3 opposing parties in the cases. Thisevidence is significant to the legal strategies in presenting Rodrick and Heisig cases. Evenafter Heisig retained a replacement, Attorney Eric Mark, to handle the Superior Courtcase
Warner and the Firm continued their refusal to release this evidence upon therequest from Attorney Eric Mark. A clear violation of 
 ER 1.3 Diligence, ER 1.4Communication
ER 1.16 Declining or Terminating Representation
ER 3.2Expediting Litigation, ER 3.4 Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel
 ER 4.4Respect for Others
 and ER 8.4 Misconduct
(d).It is clear Warner
 intentional misconduct was directed at Rodrick to adversely affectthe litigation process in the cases to the detriment of his previous client. The ArizonaSuperior Court case was significantly influenced with severe negative repercussions forRodrick due to these violations perpetrated by Warner. Such misconduct was aninexcusable abuse of the legal process and extreme examples of violations per
ER 1.3Diligence
ER 1.4 Communication
ER 1.16 Declining or Terminating Representation
ER 3.2 Expediting Litigation
ER 4.4 Respect for Rights of Others
ER 8.4Misconduct
 (d).There is no
 justification for Warner and the Firm to completely neglect the requiredrelease and/or return of ALL documentation in their possession involving the Rodrickcases. The State Bar should require that Rodrick is allowed immediate access to theBasecamp Application where all of his documentation and information has been storedby Warner and the Firm, such as the transcripts of the 3 deposition detailed, as thisinformation is
crucial to ongoing litigation.CONCLUSION
The State Bar is charged with the responsibility for protecting the public from problematicattorneys. As part of this duty, the State Bar should ensure that the public has ready access toinformation about attorney misconduct, so it can make informed decisions about who to retainwhen seeking counsel.For these reasons, the State Bar should conduct an In-depth investigation into the allegationsoutlined in detail in this complaint in regards to Attorney Warner and the Firm. The damagesrealized by Rodrick due to the extensive misconduct of Warner and the Firm are significant andmust be thoroughly reviewed to determine the amount of culpability that can be associatedwith their malpractice. I submit this complaint and ask that the State Bar take action againstWarner in the form of disbarment, and also make public the various acts of misconductdescribed herein.I respectfully request the opportunity to reply to any response given in this matter.
 Ethics Complaint Against: Daniel R. Warner
 SBN #026503
 Page | 15
Thank you in advance for your consideration and anticipated cooperation.Charles D. Rodrick//s// Charles
Printer Friendly documents Below