Opinion
46S00-0108-DI-381
May 5, 2003
ORDER FINDING MISCONDUCT AND IMPOSING DISCIPLINE
Upon review of the report of the hearing officer appointed by this Court to hear evidence on the Disciplinary Commission's two-count Verified Complaint for Disciplinary Action, we find that the respondent engaged in attorney misconduct.
Facts: Under Count I, we find that a client wanted the respondent to bring a claim against the client's ex-husband. She paid the respondent $100 for filing fee, $50 for the initial consultation, and $300 advance payment of fees. The respondent felt the potential for the claim was weak, but never advised the client of that evaluation. Instead, she ceased communicating with the client about the case, never repaid the client the advance paid expenses or fees, and for some three months ignored her inquiries and failed to take any action on the case. After being discharged by the client, the respondent continued to hold the $300 advance fee payment despite not having provided the services she was retained to perform. The hearing officer found this to constitute conversion. The respondent later failed to respond to the Disciplinary Commission's demands for a response to a grievance filed against her.
Under Count II, we find that the respondent agreed to handle a divorce for a client, and told the client she could have it completed within about three months. The respondent prepared the petition, but failed to file it with the court for a period of about three months, although during this time she reassured the client it would be completed in about two weeks. Due to her client's consternation over the delay, the respondent refunded to him the $350 retainer fee he had paid to her and agreed to conclude the case for free. Thereafter, for another three months, neither the client nor opposing counsel was able to contact the respondent, who failed to file a proposed decree as directed by the court. The respondent later failed to respond to Commission demands for a response to a grievance filed against her.
Violations: The respondent violated Ind. Professional Conduct Rule 1.3, which requires a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. She violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a), which requires lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of their legal matters and promptly to respond to their reasonable requests for information. By failing to respond to the Commission's demands for response to the grievances filed against her, the respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b). By retaining the advance fee payment after being discharged and not providing the services requested, the respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b), which prohibits a lawyer from committing a criminal act which reflect adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.
For this misconduct, we find that the respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of not fewer than ninety (90) days, beginning June 14, 2003. At the conclusion of that period, she shall be automatically reinstated to the practice of law in this state. Costs of this proceeding are assessed against the respondent. The Clerk of this Court is directed to provide notice of this order in accordance with Ind.Admission and Discipline Rule 23(3)(d) and to William E. Davis, the hearing officer in this matter.
Done at Indianapolis, Indiana, this 5th day of May, 2003.
Randall T. Shepard, Chief Justice of Indiana.
All Justices concur.