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 represented conflicting interests in a divorce, domestic violence, and criminal case involving a husband and wife. The attorney failed to disclose risks of joint representation, neglected to protect the wife and children’s interests in the divorce decree, and inadequately addressed custody and visitation issues despite the husband’s history of domestic violence and sexual abuse of his daughter. In a separate matter, the attorney failed to communicate with clients or act diligently in a case involving a defective vehicle, leading to the dismissal of their claim after the defendant’s bankruptcy discharge (paras 2-18).
Procedural History
- Discipline Committee, 1996: The attorney received an informal admonition for violating Rule 16-107(A) regarding conflicts of interest (para 19).
Parties' Submissions
- Disciplinary Board: Argued that the attorney violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct, including conflicts of interest, failure to communicate with clients, and lack of diligence in representation (headnotes, paras 12, 17-18).
- Attorney: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Did the attorney violate Rule 16-107(A) by representing clients with conflicting interests without proper disclosure and consent?
- Did the attorney fail to provide competent representation and adequate communication in violation of Rules 16-102(A) and 16-104(A)?
- Should the attorney face disciplinary action for these violations?
Disposition
- The attorney was suspended from practicing law for 18 months, with the suspension deferred in favor of supervised probation under specific conditions (paras 20-21).
Reasons
Per curiam:
The Court found that the attorney’s representation of conflicting interests in the divorce and criminal cases violated Rule 16-107(A), as the conflicts were unwaivable and the attorney failed to disclose risks to the wife. The attorney’s actions disadvantaged the wife and children, particularly regarding custody and visitation provisions, and demonstrated insensitivity to the seriousness of the husband’s crimes (paras 6-12).
In the defective vehicle case, the attorney violated Rules 16-102(A) and 16-104(A) by failing to consult with clients, keep them informed, or act diligently. The attorney improperly delegated responsibilities to legal assistants, raising concerns about unauthorized practice of law (paras 13-18).
The Court noted the attorney’s prior admonition for similar misconduct as an aggravating factor and imposed supervised probation to ensure compliance with ethical standards and improve professional practices (paras 19-21).