Opinion ID: 1365800
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Competence and Diligence

Text: In the course of representing Mr. Wooding, the Board alleged that the respondent had violated Rule 1.1, which as previously stated requires a lawyer to provide competent representation to a client. The Board also alleged that the respondent violated Rule 1.3, which states that A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. After Mr. Wooding was indicted, a federal prosecutor offered a plea bargain to the respondent. A portion of the plea bargain involved Mr. Wooding wearing a wire to assist the government in a criminal investigation of illegal cocaine distribution. Alternatively, Mr. Wooding could have aided the government by submitting to a debriefing by federal law enforcement officers, that is, submit to their questioning. By accepting the plea offer and cooperating, Mr. Wooding would have faced a lower sentence under the federal sentencing guidelines. The respondent stated to the federal prosecutor that he refused to negotiate a plea agreement for Mr. Wooding, and denied that Mr. Wooding had any involvement in the distribution of drugs. The respondent insisted that the indictment be dismissed, and stated that Mr. Wooding would plead guilty to nothing more than simple possession based upon an information. The respondent also stated that co-defendant Carter would exculpate Wooding. Furthermore, although the law regarding possessing a weapon was clearly established, the respondent repeatedly told the federal prosecutor that he could convince one member of the jury that the law was incorrect, and that Mr. Wooding should be acquitted. Approximately 2 months after the indictment, the federal prosecutor met with the respondent and, apparently for the first time, with Mr. Wooding. During their meeting, the federal prosecutor perceived that the respondent had failed to advise Mr. Wooding of her previous offer of a plea bargain. She also learned that Mr. Woodingand apparently, the respondentdid not understand how the federal sentencing guidelines operated, and did not understand the extensive sentence Mr. Wooding faced if he did not plead guilty and cooperate. The respondent told the federal prosecutor that she was jaded and cynical and had been at her job too long, and was assuming things that weren't there. The respondent again insisted that Mr. Wooding had no legal culpability. When the federal prosecutor attempted to explain her understanding of the case, the respondent suggested she was being misleading or was misrepresenting the evidence. Mr. Wooding's co-defendant, Carter, subsequently was the first to accept the government's plea offers; he then gave a statement to the FBI which was incriminating to Mr. Wooding. When the federal prosecutor advised the respondent that Mr. Carter had accepted a plea offer, the respondent accused her of lying. The federal prosecutor then personally gave the respondent a copy of a summary of Mr. Carter's debriefing. In an open courtroom, in a statement overheard by court personnel, the respondent stated, Oh, I know what this is. This is the script you've given Carter so that he could perjure himself, or words to that effect. Prior to Mr. Wooding's trial, the respondent filed numerous pretrial motions late. When the district court extended the deadline for filing additional motions, the respondent again did not file his motions on time. The respondent waited until the day before trial was to begin to file a motion seeking court-appointed expert and investigative services. The trial was continued to a new date, and the respondent waited until 4 days before the new trial to file a motion to exceed the $300.00 limit for expert services. The respondent did not even have the name of the expert which he proposed to call. The respondent's representation of Mr. Wooding was ineffective in other areas. The respondent failed to appear at a hearing before the district court, requiring the district judge's staff to locate the respondent and demand his presence. The respondent did not issue subpoenas until the Friday before the trial, scheduled to begin on Tuesday. The respondent requested subpoenas of the same witnesses which the government had previously subpoenaed. The federal prosecutor had interviewed these witnesses, at least one of whom was a police officer, and all of whom had provided incriminating evidence against Mr. Wooding. The day before trial, the federal prosecutor voiced her concerns to the district court over whether Mr. Wooding was being adequately represented. The district court agreed with her concerns, and appointed another attorney to assist in the representation of Mr. Wooding. The district court directed the parties to appear at the scheduled time of trial the next day. Court personnel, the new attorney, the federal prosecutor and jury appeared. The respondent was an hour late. Based upon the aforementioned evidence, the Board concluded that the respondent violated Rules 1.1 and 1.3, and failed to provide Mr. Wooding with competent and diligent representation. ii.