Richard M. Bash   2-6   SCT – Per Curiam,     Attorney Discipline Action
(Attorney suspended for 180 days without automatic reinstatement, and he need not apply for reinstatement unless he has an attitude adjustment that includes true remorse.)

  1.  Attorney received a prior public reprimand in 2004 for:
    1. Counseling or assisting a client in fraudulent or criminal conduct, 
    2. Engaging in ex parte communication with a judge,
    3. Failing to disclose what is required by law,
    4. In representation of a client, using delay, embarrassment, burden, and methods that violate the rights of others.   
  2. Attorney failed to competently represent a client in post conviction relief case, to the client’s detriment, where client was convicted of confinement, battery with a deadly weapon, and possession of a controlled substance for an attack on his girlfriend.  As a result relief was denied.  There was a sufficiency argument on the confinement count and a double jeopardy issue as well.  He failed to understand the fundamental requirements to obtaining relief. 
    1. He failed to assert ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
    2. He presented no real evidence to attack the credibility of girlfriend victim/witness concerning the confinement conviction, calling only his client and the client’s mother as witnesses. 
    3. He failed to offer evidence that was not available at the time of trial.
    4. He failed to call appellate counsel as a witness.
    5. He made no showing appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise sufficiency of evidence on the confinement conviction, despite the preservation of the issue by trial counsel.
    6. He failed to offer the trial transcript into evidence.
    7. His brief to the court offered conclusions and findings for which no evidentiary foundation was laid.  
  3. Attorney’s move making on divorce client was inappropriate attempt to engage in a sexual relationship with that client.  Trying to kiss her twice during initial consultation and sending sexually explicit e-mails is not allowed.  The attorney-client relationship remained intact at the time of the e-mails, despite the filing of a motion to dismiss the divorce action earlier in the day.