Loading

Disciplinary Reporter Case Digest

Attorney ID 0
Attorney Name Anonymous,    
DBP Docket No. 132 DB 2000
Supreme Court Docket No. N/A
County  
Disciplinary Counsel Patti S. Bednarik
Counsel for Respondent
Decision Date 2001-12-10
Effective Date 2002-02-13
Case Digest Respondent was retained in 1988 to handle a personal injury matter. In June 1994, three of the defendants were granted summary judgment. Respondent did not advise his client that the case had been dismissed against three of the defendants. Respondentís client called periodically about her case. Respondent did not speak to her or return her calls. Respondent also failed to respond to opposing counselís two written requests for settlement demands. Respondent did not take any action on this matter until the defendants filed a Petition for RTSC why Judgment of Non Pros should not be entered. Respondent filed an Answer to the Petition, but failed to file a brief as required by the local rules. The Judgment of Non Pros was granted in 1997, and Respondent failed to inform his client. Aggravating Factors - Respondent had received an informal admonition for violations of RPCs 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.4(b) and 8.4(d). Respondent had filed two civil cases, which were eventually nolle prossed as a result of his inaction. Mitigating Factors - he was suffering from depression at the time that the misconduct occurred, but did not present clear and convincing evidence that the depression was a substantial factor in causing the misconduct.
Rule Violation(s) 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.4(b)
Discipline Imposed Private Reprimand after formal proceedings
Points of Law It was clear from the Disciplinary Boardís report that any further incidents of neglect will result in public discipline. Failure to advise clients of decisions on their cases violates the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Report/Opinion not available