Lawyer Must Never Lie to the Police or the State Bar

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gnEXGpTz, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gg-MPiDz and at https://lnkd.in/gk-PaxiN and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.

Post 5004

Naomi R. Leisz was admitted to the practice of law in the State of Montana in October 2002, at which time Respondent took the oath required for admission, wherein Respondent agreed to abide by the Rules of Professional Conduct, the Disciplinary Rules adopted by the Supreme Court, and the highest standards of honesty, justice and morality, including but not limited to, those outlined in parts 3 and 4 of Chapter 61, Title 37, Montana Code Annotated.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) alleged that Respondent ended up pleading guilty to misdemeanor Obstructing Justice, in violation of Mont. Code Ann. § 45-7-303(2). Respondent was originally charged with felony Insurance Fraud, in violation of Mont. Code Ann. § 33-1-1504(1)(a). Respondent admitted to facts demonstrating the commission of insurance fraud. Respondent filed an insurance claim wherein she claimed to have swerved to avoid hitting an animal and hit a tree. However, in actuality, her son was driving the car that hit a power pole which caused damage to both the car and the power pole.

Respondent lied to law enforcement about the accident. She demanded law enforcement turn over evidence and stop investigating. Respondent also lied to law enforcement regarding her knowledge about the damage to the vehicle and the whereabouts of the vehicle involved in the accident.

The insurance company paid the claim, however, when the insurance company learned that Respondent had not been the driver and the actual facts of the accident, the adjuster indicated the claim would not have been paid had the true information been presented to them.

In The Matter Of Naomi R. Leisz, An Attorney at Law, No. PR 25-0150, Supreme Court of Montana (February 20, 2025) Ms. Leisz also reported to ODC that she had voluntarily transferred her license to inactive status. The State Bar of Montana has nothing on file which indicates Respondent requested her license be placed on inactive status or that her license was ever placed on inactive status.

Rule 8.4 states that it is misconduct for a lawyer to violate or attempt to violate the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; or engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. Respondent’s conduct outlined above constitutes violations of Rule 8.4, Misconduct; MRPC.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel asked the Supreme Court to:

1. That a Citation be issued to the Respondent, to which shall be attached a copy of the complaint, requiring Respondent, within twenty-one (21) days after service thereof, to file a written answer to the complaint;
2. That a formal hearing be had on the allegations of this complaint before an Adjudicatory Panel of the Commission;
3 That the Adjudicatory Panel of the Commission make a report of its findings and recommendations after a formal hearing to the Montana Supreme Court, and, in the event the Adjudicatory Panel finds the facts warrant disciplinary action and recommends discipline, that the Commission also recommend the nature and extent of appropriate disciplinary action, including an award of costs and expenses incurred in investigating and prosecuting this matter; and,
4 For such other and further relief as deemed necessary and proper.

ZALMA OPINION

The Supreme Court of Montana should have little difficulty with this referral since Ms. Leisz not only lied to her insurance company and received insurance benefits based upon false statements, lied to the police about the accident, lied to the ODC, and claimed she had placed her license in an inactive status, all of which the ODC alleged were in violation of the rules of professional conduct. In fact, if the local prosecutor was interested she could be charged with felony insurance fraud. If the allegations against her are not true Justice will require, if she has a reason that can be explained to the Supreme Court, that she be allowed to keep her license to practice law.

(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg

Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk