Michael Patrick Harnden Accused Of Stealing Clients Money & Abandonment

View More Categories

Michael Harnden Currently Under Investigation By State Bars In Multiple States

Attorney Michael Harnden of Tucson has several other complaints in multiple states which he has yet to respond after repeated requests from state bars to do so.

Michael Patrick Harnden appears to have also been relieved of his duties and his license to operate as a financial consultant at his fathers financial consulting firm Stephen Patrick Harnden - Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. Michael Harnden  previousco-worker Barry Rorex is currently suspended for abandoning several clients and as we speak currently under investigation for practicing law while suspended.

 

Violating Harnden’s ethical duties and obligations as an attorney as defined by the Arizona
Duties and Obligations as stated by the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct contained within
Rule 42 (hereafter, “Rules”), Arizona Revised Superior Court, by engaging in repeated instances
of violating ER 1.1, ER 1.2, ER 1.3, ER 1.4, ER 1.5, ER 1.16, ER 3.2, ER 3.3, ER 5.2, ER 7.1, ER 7.5
and ER 8.4. The seriousness and scope of the misconduct perpetrated by Harnden over an
extended period of time calls for an extensive review of the entire circumstances outlined
below. The specific violations committed by Harnden are governed by the following Rule 42
dictates:
1. ER 1.1 – Competence. A lawyer shall provide competent representation requires the
legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the
representation.
2. ER 1.2 – Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and
Lawyer. (a) Subject to paragraphs (c) and (d), a lawyer shall abide by a client’s
decisions concerning the objectives of representation and, as required by ER 1.4, shall
consult as to the means by which they are to be pursued.
3. ER 1.3 – Diligence. A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client.
4. ER 1.4 – Communication. (a) A lawyer shall: (1) promptly inform the client if any
decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent, as
defined in ER 1.0(e), is requires by these Rules; (2) reasonably consult with the client
about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished; (3) keep
the client reasonably requests for information; and (5) consult with the client about
any relevant limitation on the lawyer’s conduct when the lawyer knows that the
client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other
law. (b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonable necessary to permit
the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
5. ER 1.5 – Fees. (a) A lawyer shall note make an agreement for, charge, or collect an
unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses. The factors to be
considered in determining the reasonableness of a fee include the following: (4) the
amount involved and the results obtained; (5) the time limitations imposed by the
client or by the circumstances. (e) A division of a fee between lawyers who are not in
the same firm may be made only if: (2) the client agrees, in writing by the client, to
the participation of all the lawyers involved and the division of the fees and
responsibilities between the lawyers.
6. ER 1.16 – Declining or Termination Representation. (a) Except as stated in paragraph
(c), a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced,
shall withdraw from the representation of a client if: (1) the representation will result
in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; (2) the lawyer’s physical
or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer’s ability to represent the client.
7. ER 3.2 – Expediting Litigation. A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite
litigation consistent with the interest of the client.
8. ER 3.3 – Candor Toward the Tribunal. (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a
false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of
material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.
9. ER 5.2 – Responsibilities of a Subordinate Lawyer. (a) A lawyer is bound by the Rules
of Professional Conduct notwithstanding that the lawyer acted at the direction of
another person.
10. ER 7.1 – Communications Concerning a Lawyer’s Services. A lawyer shall not make or
knowingly permit to be made on the lawyer’s behalf a false or misleading
communications about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services. A communications is false
or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact
necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading.
11. ER 7.5 – Firm Names and Letterheads. (a) A lawyer shall not use a firm name,
letterhead or other professional designation that violates ER 7.1. (d) Lawyers may
state or imply that they practice in a partnership or other organization only when that
is the fact.
12. ER 8.4 – Misconduct. It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (a) violate or
attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce
another to do so, or do so through the acts of another.
It is requested that the State Bar of Arizona (hereafter, “SBA”) assign a Bar Counsel to review
the misconduct of Harnden and recommend the appropriate disciplinary procedures for the
circumstances involved in his abandonment of the federal case and repeated ethical violations
of the Rules. Rodrick is requesting Harnden be sanctioned in the form of permanent
disbarment. Also, Rodrick seeks financial reimbursement for services not rendered that were
paid directly to the personal Wells Fargo bank account (not a required Trust IOLTA account) of
Harnden per his direct instruction.

http://www.barcomplaint.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Michael_Harnden_Accused_Of_Theft_Abandoning_Clients.pdf

Michael Harnden Arizona Bar Complaint

Exhibits are withheld during the investigation.

Stay Tuned For Full Story