On Thursday, September 19, 2024, the Supreme Court of Arizona suspended attorney James R. Eckley from practicing law for six months and one day for violating ethical rules related to his client agreements.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of James R. Eckley,” with case no. SB-23-0083-AP.
The case originated from complaints filed by two of Eckley’s former clients, Susan Riley and Elia Bradley, regarding his representation of them. Riley had hired Eckley in 2017 to pursue additional compensation from her ex-husband’s business but disputed his billings and handling of the case. On another hand Bradley, through her son Mark Monje, hired Eckley to assist with a real estate matter. However, they ended their relationship within a few months due to disagreements over billing.
The Bar accused Eckley of misconduct, claiming he charged Bradley’s credit card for fees after Monje had revoked the authorization and imposed an unreasonable dispute resolution process when Monje raised concerns about the Firm’s billing practices. This led the State Bar of Arizona to investigate and eventually file a disciplinary complaint against Eckley alleging various rule violations.
A disciplinary hearing panel held a two-day hearing on the complaints and found that Eckley did not violate the specific rules originally alleged. However, the panel amended the complaint to claim Eckley had made false statements during the disciplinary process. The panel ultimately agreed with this and suspended Eckley based on violations of rules regarding dishonest conduct and making false statements during a disciplinary investigation.
Both Eckley and the State Bar appealed different aspects of the panel’s decision. In its review, the Arizona Supreme Court overturned the panel’s findings regarding false statements, determining there was no clear evidence Eckley had been dishonest. However, the high court did rule in favor of one of the State Bar’s arguments by finding Eckley had violated ethics rules requiring lawyers to explain matters to permit informed client decisions and avoid conflicts of interest.
The Court found issues with the lengthy and convoluted fee descriptions, cost reimbursement terms favoring the lawyer, and dispute resolution processes in Eckley’s client agreements with Riley. These issues could reasonably confuse clients and prioritize the lawyer’s interests over the client’s. The Court noted Eckley had received prior discipline for similar fee agreement violations, showing his misconduct was knowing rather than negligent.
Taking into account the violations found and aggravating factors like Eckley’s extensive disciplinary history involving comparable conduct, the Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the six-month-and-one-day suspension imposed by the hearing panel. However, it denied the State Bar’s request that Eckley also pay $37,000 in claimed damages, finding such an award did not stem from his ethical lapses.
According to avvo.com, Mr. Eckley acquired his law license in Arizona in 1988.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
