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, referred to as the Respondent, was retained by a client in a divorce proceeding. The client paid $600 of a $1200 flat fee and provided the necessary documents for filing responsive pleadings. The Respondent prepared the pleadings but instructed his secretary to withhold filing them until the remaining fee was paid, contrary to the client’s understanding and the written fee agreement. The Respondent failed to file the pleadings, resulting in a default judgment against the client. The Respondent also refused to set aside the judgment or refund the fees (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- Discipline Committee, April 6, 1990: The hearing committee accepted a consent to discipline agreement with modifications, including restitution with interest and tolling of the Respondent’s probationary period during suspension (para 7).
Parties' Submissions
- Disciplinary Board: Alleged that the Respondent violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct, including failing to act with diligence, charging fees for unrendered services, and engaging in conduct reflecting adversely on his fitness to practice law (paras 6-7).
- Respondent: Denied professional misconduct, arguing that no action was required due to the client’s failure to pay the full fee. Offered to refund the $600 retainer if directed by disciplinary counsel but failed to do so before charges were filed (para 5).
Legal Issues
- Did the Respondent violate the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to act with diligence, charging fees for unrendered services, and engaging in conduct reflecting adversely on his fitness to practice law?
Disposition
- The Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for six months, with automatic reinstatement contingent on full payment of restitution, interest, and costs (para 8).
- The Respondent was ordered to pay $600 in restitution with interest and the costs of the disciplinary proceedings (paras 8-10).
- The Respondent’s probationary period was tolled during the suspension (para 9).
Reasons
Per Curiam (unanimous):
The Court found that the Respondent violated several Rules of Professional Conduct, including failing to act with reasonable diligence, charging fees for services not rendered, and failing to keep client funds separate from personal funds. The Respondent’s conduct, including allowing a default judgment to be entered against his client and refusing to refund fees, reflected adversely on his fitness to practice law. The Court approved the disciplinary board’s recommendations, including suspension, restitution with interest, and tolling of the probationary period, as appropriate sanctions to address the misconduct and protect the public (paras 6-10).