Opinion ID: 6315833
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: 18 D.R. 80 Charge II.

Text: On April 23,1979, [D] retained respondent to prepare a power of attorney for a real estate closing in Virginia (Rep. at 12). Respondent prepared the power of attorney but neither an acknowledgement nor a provision for execution before a notary public were included on the form (Rep. at 12). Respondent’s services consisted of copying a form from a form book (PE 12). Respondent charged [D] $75 for the power of attorney (Rep. at 12). The Virginia attorney involved in the real estate closing refused to accept the power of attorney because it lacked an acknowledgement. He prepared another power of attorney for [D] at no charge (Rep. at 13). Subsequently, [D] demanded a refund of the $75 fee from respondent (Rep. at 14). Having received no satisfaction from respondent, [D] filed a complaint for recovery of the fee with a district magistrate. On August 14, 1979, default judgment was entered against respondent (Rep. at 14). On August 20, 1979, respondent sent a letter to the district magistrate, without sending a copy to [D], in which he stated that he had not received notice of the hearing, that the power of attorney which he prepared “was strickly [sic] from a form book and there is absolutely no foundation to this suit,” and that if [D] is “the type of new people that come into our area, I think she ought to leave the area.”(PE 12). At a second hearing on September 4, 1979, judgment was again entered against respondent. Respondent appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of [ ] County (Rep. at 15). On October 3, 1979, [D] filed a complaint against respondent in the court of common pleas seeking recovery of the fee. At the same time, she filed a complaint with the Censor’s Committee of [E] County (Rep. at 15). After several communications with the [E] County Censor’s Committee and with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, respondent filed a counterclaim in trespass against [D] claiming that her lawsuit against him was “willful and malicious” and seeking damages not in excess of $10,000 for “great humiliation” and the time and expense of defending himself (Rep. at 16-17). Evidence further reveals that respondent graduated from law school in 1966, served in the United States Army until January, 1969 with a military operation specialty in artillery, and clerked for a distinguished jurist from 1969 to 1972. Since 1973 respondent has been in private practice. He has not been a defendant in any civil action nor arrested or prosecuted for any criminal charge during the last ten years.