FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 8, 2013
Contact: Rick DeBruhl, Chief Communications Officer
Phone: 602.340.7335, Mobile: 602.513.6385
Email: rick.debruhl@staff.azbar.org

Attorneys Joseph W. Charles, Richard E. Clark, and Daniel P. Jensen Suspended from the Practice of Law

PHOENIX – Jan. 8, 2013 – Attorney Joseph W. Charles of Glendale, Richard E. Clark of Liverpool, New York, and Daniel P. Jensen of Tempe have been suspended from the practice of law for violating the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In the matter of Joseph W. Charles, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge of the Arizona Supreme Court accepted a consent agreement between him and the State Bar of Arizona and ordered that he be suspended from the practice of law for six months.

Joseph W. Charles was serving a suspension of six months and one day, previously ordered on March 2, 2011. He was suspended for an additional six months as he was negligent in handling his trust account; engaged in a pattern of neglect of client matters; and failed to ensure that clients, opposing counsel, and the courts were aware of his prior suspensions. Charles had not been reinstated from the March 2 suspension.

Charles’ suspension was effective Sept. 25, 2012. He was ordered to pay $1,603.93 to the State Bar of Arizona for costs and expenses incurred during its investigation. In addition, Charles must participate in fee arbitration with clients who file a petition for fee arbitration. If reinstated, he will be placed on probation for two years.

In the matter of Richard E. Clark, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge of the Arizona Supreme Court accepted a consent agreement between him and the State Bar of Arizona and ordered that he be suspended from the practice of law for 60 days.

In the first count, the State Bar of Arizona found that Richard E. Clark of Liverpool, New York failed to make appearances or respond to various pleadings in a number of matters resulting in cases being dismissed or sanctions being imposed. He also failed to notify the courts he was no longer acting as counsel for his client in a timely manner.

The second count found that Clark failed to adequately communicate with his client about the status of her bankruptcy matter and failed to respond to a motion to dismiss that was subsequently granted.

Clark’s suspension was effective Nov. 5, 2012. He was ordered to pay $1,251.22 to the State Bar of Arizona for costs and expenses incurred during the investigation. If reinstated, he will be placed on supervised probation for one year and will be required to participate in the Bar’s Law Office Management Program (LOMAP).

In the matter of Daniel P. Jensen, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge of the Arizona Supreme Court accepted a consent agreement between him and the State Bar of Arizona and ordered that he be suspended for six months and one day, retroactive to May 20, 2011.

During its investigation, the Bar found that after agreeing to represent a client regarding a creditor’s attempt to collect payment from her on a debt incurred by her former husband, Jensen violated several Rules of Professional Conduct. He failed to communicate the scope of his representation and the basis or rate of the fee and expenses that his client would incur, failed to file an answer to the creditor’s complaint until an Application for Entry of Default had been filed, and failed to return client’s calls and emails.

The Bar also found that Jensen failed to notify his client that he could no longer represent her after being suspended from the practice of law and failed to withdraw as counsel of record. In addition, Jensen failed to refund the unearned portion of his fee, which was also found to be unreasonable given the work performed.

Jensen failed to provide his client or her subsequent counsel with the file he maintained on her behalf and failed to respond to Bar Counsel’s correspondence.

The suspension is retroactive to May 20, 2011. Daniel P. Jensen was ordered to pay $2,000 in restitution and $1,200 to the State Bar of Arizona for costs and expenses incurred during its investigation. If reinstated, he will be placed on two years of probation. 


About the State Bar
The State Bar of Arizona is a non-profit organization that operates under the supervision of the Arizona Supreme Court. The Bar includes approximately 17,000 active attorneys and provides education and development programs for the legal profession and the public. Since 1933 the Bar and its members have been committed to serving the public by making sure the voices of all people in Arizona are heard in our justice system.

# # #