This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
An attorney was retained to represent a client in a vehicle repossession case. Despite assurances that the case was under control, the attorney failed to file an answer, resulting in a default judgment and a writ of garnishment against the client. The client sought assistance from another attorney, who successfully had the default judgment set aside and negotiated a settlement. The attorney also failed to refund the client's retainer promptly and had a history of neglecting professional obligations, including failing to pay bar dues for several years (paras 2-6).
Procedural History
- In re Rivera, 27 SBB 37 (September 15, 1989): The attorney was formally reprimanded for similar violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct (para 8).
Parties' Submissions
- Disciplinary Board: Argued that the attorney's repeated violations of professional conduct rules warranted formal disciplinary action, including suspension (paras 5-8).
- Respondent (Attorney): Acknowledged the violations, cited mitigating factors such as reimbursement of the client, lack of harm to the client, and personal efforts to address a drinking problem (paras 5, 9).
Legal Issues
- Whether the attorney's conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.
- Whether suspension or probation was the appropriate sanction for the attorney's repeated misconduct.
Disposition
- The attorney was suspended from the practice of law for six months, with the suspension deferred for one year, during which the attorney was placed on unsupervised probation under specific conditions (para 10).
Reasons
Per curiam:
The Court found that the attorney's conduct violated multiple provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including neglect of a client matter, failure to communicate, and failure to pay bar dues (paras 5-6). While isolated instances of neglect might not warrant formal action, the attorney's prior reprimand for similar misconduct and continued violations justified a more severe response (para 8). However, mitigating factors, including the lack of harm to the client, reimbursement, and the attorney's efforts to address personal issues, led the Court to defer the suspension and impose probation instead (para 9). The probation terms included compliance with professional conduct rules, prompt responses to disciplinary inquiries, reporting address changes, passing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, and reimbursing disciplinary costs (para 10).