Matter of Sisler

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court reviewed objections to findings and recommendations of the Commission on Practice concerning attorney Matthew J. Sisler. The Court adopted findings that Sisler violated Rules 4.2 and 8.4 of the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, struck certain irrelevant or uncharged testimony, and imposed an indefinite suspension of at least three months, effective July 14, 2001. The Court also assessed proceeding costs of $4,535.83 and ordered compliance with client-notification requirements.

Holdings

1. The Montana Supreme Court reviews objections to findings of the Commission on Practice de novo.
2. An attorney remains attorney of record until the court issues an order allowing the attorney to withdraw.
3. A party is not denied due process by the absence of advance notice of witnesses and exhibits when the disciplinary rules provide discovery opportunities and the party elects not to use them.
4. Rules 52(b) and 59(a), M.R.Civ.P., do not apply to proceedings before the Commission on Practice.
5. Evidence concerning conduct outside the events narrowly framed by the complaint, and irrelevant generalized character testimony, must be stricken from the disciplinary findings.
6. Sisler violated Rule 4.2 by communicating with Bennett about the domestic proceeding while she remained represented by Carter, and violated Rule 8.4 by misrepresenting to the county attorney's office that Bennett had dropped the divorce.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Commission on Practice's findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence.
2. Whether an attorney remains attorney of record until a court issues an order permitting withdrawal.
3. Whether the disciplinary proceeding denied Sisler due process because he was not given advance notice of witnesses and exhibits.
4. Whether Montana Rules of Civil Procedure 52(b) and 59(a) apply to proceedings before the Commission on Practice.
5. Whether evidence concerning uncharged conduct and generalized character testimony exceeded the scope of the disciplinary complaint.
6. Whether Sisler violated Rules 4.2 and 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Disposition

other