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 by three clients for legal representation in separate matters, including collection and divorce cases. The attorney failed to act diligently, neglected to communicate adequately with the clients, and did not advance their cases. Additionally, the attorney practiced law while suspended for non-payment of bar dues and admitted to suffering from chronic depression, which impacted his ability to practice law effectively (paras 2-6).
Procedural History
- Discipline Committee, January 15, 1993: The hearing committee recommended indefinite suspension with conditions for reinstatement after finding the attorney violated multiple professional conduct rules (para 7).
Parties' Submissions
- Disciplinary Board: Argued that the attorney committed multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including neglecting client matters, failing to communicate, and practicing law while suspended. Recommended indefinite suspension with conditions for reinstatement (paras 1, 7).
- Attorney (Respondent): Admitted to neglecting client matters and practicing law while suspended. Cited ongoing depression as a factor and expressed no intention to return to legal practice (paras 6-7).
Legal Issues
- Did the attorney violate the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to act diligently and communicate with clients?
- Did the attorney engage in unauthorized practice of law while suspended?
- Should the attorney’s mental health condition mitigate the disciplinary measures imposed?
Disposition
- The attorney was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law, with specific conditions imposed for potential reinstatement (para 13).
Reasons
Per Curiam:
The Court adopted the findings and recommendations of the Disciplinary Board, concluding that the attorney violated several professional conduct rules, including failing to act with diligence (Rule 16-103), failing to communicate with clients (Rule 16-104), failing to cooperate with disciplinary counsel (Rule 16-803(D)), and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice (Rule 16-804(D)) and reflecting adversely on his fitness to practice law (Rule 16-804(H)) (paras 9-10).
The Court emphasized that the attorney’s chronic depression, while acknowledged, could not mitigate the discipline because it continued to impair his ability to practice law and posed a risk to the public. The Court reiterated its duty to prioritize public protection over compassion for troubled lawyers (paras 11-12).
The conditions for reinstatement included demonstrating mental fitness through expert testimony, supervised practice upon reinstatement, passing an ethics examination, and paying costs associated with the disciplinary proceedings (para 14).