Opinion
No. 89-1093
Submitted August 15, 1989 —
Decided November 15, 1989.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Two-year suspension stayed pending two years of monitored probation — Neglect of legal matter — Failure to carry out contract of employment — Failure to cooperate.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 18-88-B.
In an amended complaint filed on July 20, 1988, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, alleged, in Count I, that respondent, James Caywood, violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(2) (failure to carry out contract of employment), and 9-102(B) (failure to promptly deliver a client's property); in Count II that he violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2) and 7-102(A)(5) (knowingly making a false statement of fact); and in Count III that he violated Gov. Bar R. V (5)(a) (failure to cooperate with an investigation). Respondent admitted some of the allegations in Count I, but denied the remaining allegations, and denied any violations. He admitted the allegations contained in Counts II and III.
More specifically, Disciplinary Counsel actually charges a violation of DR 9-102(B)(4).
As to Count I, Carl J. Roth hired respondent to represent him in a personal injury case in Alabama. Roth became dissatisfied with respondent's representation, complaining that respondent failed to communicate with him. Roth fired respondent and hired another attorney. Roth also alleges that respondent refused to return his case file.
According to respondent, he corresponded with the other party's attorney; he acquired, at respondent's cost, Roth's medical report and the police report of the accident; and he corresponded with others regarding the accident. Furthermore, respondent returned all money advanced by Roth. Respondent denied refusing to return the file but claimed that he was unable to contact Roth. A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board") concluded that respondent represented Roth less than professionally but did not violate the Disciplinary Rules. The board agreed.
As to Count II, Helen Bolz retained respondent to probate the estate of Arnold H. Keyerleber. Respondent gave Bolz his affidavit, dated April 13, 1987, attesting that Bolz was the executrix of the decedent's estate. In fact, respondent filed the application to probate the will on December 15, 1987, but Bolz was named executrix, through the efforts of another attorney, on June 3, 1988.
With the affidavit, Bolz attempted to sell the decedent's automobile. She was sued when the purchaser could not obtain title to the automobile. The purchaser obtained a default judgment when respondent failed to defend the suit.
Bolz also attempted to sell a vacant lot, relying on the affidavit, but was unable to accomplish this until she hired another attorney.
Respondent admits these allegations, acknowledges his inaction, and claims lack of expertise in probate matters as an excuse. He reimbursed Bolz for her losses, including attorney fees.
As to Count III, respondent admits his failure to respond to the investigation, claiming that he was paralyzed by fear and embarrassment.
The panel and the board accepted respondent's admissions. The board, agreeing with the panel, found that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), and 7-102(A)(5), and Gov. Bar R. V(5)(a). The board adopted the panel's recommendation that respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for two years with monitored probation substituted for the suspension.
J. Warren Bettis, disciplinary counsel, and Charles T. Brown, for relator.
Edwin H. Jacobs, for respondent.
We agree with the board's findings and recommendation. Accordingly, we suspend respondent from the practice of law for two years but stay the suspension pending his successful completion of two years of monitored probation. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.