| Case Digest |
Respondent was transferred to inactive status by order of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court dated July 26, 2005. Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement requiring notification to clients and others of his transfer to inactive status. In seeking reinstatement to active status, Respondent falsely advised the Disciplinary Board that he was on active status in New Jersey, despite the fact that he was ineligible to practice in that state due to his failure to pay his annual assessments.
In connection with his representation of an executor of an estate, Respondent failed to provide his client with a fee agreement, provided incompetent advice, failed to advise the client that he could not represent the client in New Jersey proceedings due to his inactive status in that jurisdiction, failed to act diligently and failed to promptly release the file to successor counsel after being discharged by the client.
In another client matter, Respondent failed to provide diligent representation, failed to advise the client that he was transferred to inactive status in Pennsylvania, failed to hold unearned fees in escrow pending performance of legal services, failed to communicate with his client and misrepresented the status of the matter to the client.
In mitigation, Respondent admitted engaging in misconduct and agreed to a suspension of his license.
|
| Rule Violation(s) |
RPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a)(1), 1.4(a)(2), 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.4(b), 1.5(b), 1.15(a), 1.16(a)(1), 1.16(d), 5.5(a), 7.1, 8.4(c), 8.4(d), Pa.R.D.E. 203(b)(3), Pa.R.D.E. 217(a), Pa.R.D.E. 217(b), Pa.R.D.E |
