Opinion ID: 1849814
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Bradley Grievance

Text: As to count I, there is clear and convincing evidence that James violated DR 1-102(A)(1) and (5). Neb. Ct. R. of Discipline 9(E) (rev. 2001) states, inter alia, that [u]pon receipt of notice of a Grievance from the Counsel for Discipline, the member against whom the Grievance is directed shall prepare and submit to the Counsel for Discipline, in writing, within fifteen working days of receipt of such notice, an appropriate response to the Grievance, or a response stating that the member refuses to answer substantively and explicitly asserting constitutional or other grounds therefor. Neb. Ct. R. of Discipline 3(B) (rev. 2001) provides that [a]cts or omissions by a member . . . which violate . . . provisions of these rules, shall be grounds for discipline . . . . James was initially contacted about Craig's grievance on October 3, 2001. In this letter, the Counsel for Discipline notified James that pursuant to rule 9(E), he had 15 working days to send a written response to the allegations and that he would be subject to discipline if he failed to respond. Knowing the potential ramifications of inaction, James chose not to acknowledge the grievance within 15 working days. The Counsel for Discipline contacted James again on November 16, 2001. James provided a brief written response on November 18, specifically promising to contact the Counsel for Discipline when he returned from a trip on November 27. However, as of February 8, 2002, the Counsel for Discipline had not heard from James. Therefore, on February 8, the Counsel for Discipline requested, via letter, a copy of James' file regarding Bradley's case. Again, James did not reply, and on February 21, the Counsel for Discipline wrote to James again, requesting to see Bradley's file. In response, James telephoned the Counsel for Discipline, stating that he could not find Bradley's file, but that he would continue to look for it. On March 20, the Counsel for Discipline requested an update on the status of Bradley's file. James did not respond to this request. On June 4, 2002, an Assistant Counsel for Discipline faxed and mailed a letter to James requesting a meeting to discuss Craig's grievance. The letter stated, inter alia, that if James failed to respond, the Counsel for Discipline would request a temporary suspension of his license. The same day, James contacted the Counsel for Discipline to schedule a meeting to discuss Craig's grievance. That meeting took place on June 12, during which James turned over Bradley's file. However, it was not until July 15 that the Counsel for Discipline finally received James' complete written response to the grievance. In other words, it took James over 9 months to fully respond to the Counsel for Discipline. Such conduct runs afoul of rule 9(E) and clearly violates DR 1-102(A)(1) and (5). James contends that his conduct should be excused because he could not find Bradley's file and that, therefore, he could not adequately respond to the grievance. This excuse is without merit. If James truly could not find Bradley's file, the proper response to the grievance would have been to notify the Counsel for Discipline of such and to construct a response as best as possible from memory and other available resources. A member of the bar may not, however, simply ignore the Counsel for Discipline. James also argues that his brief written response, received by the Counsel for Discipline on November 20, 2001, served to stop the clock from running under rule 9(E). This argument is also without merit. As an initial matter, this response was received well after the time limit established by rule 9(E). In addition, it was an incomplete response to the charges contained in Craig's grievance. Moreover, James failed to contact the Counsel for Discipline when he returned to Lincoln, despite an assurance in his letter that he would do so. As to this last point, James argues that beyond a member's duty to respond to the initial notice of a grievance, there are no guidelines concerning a member's duty to respond to further inquiries on behalf of the Counsel for Discipline. This is incorrect. See, DR 1-102(A)(5); State ex rel. NSBA v. Simmons, 259 Neb. 120, 123, 608 N.W.2d 174, 177 (2000) (a failure to make timely responses to inquiries of the Counsel for Discipline . . . violates ethical canons and disciplinary rules which prohibit conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); State ex rel. NSBA v. Johnston, 251 Neb. 468, 558 N.W.2d 53 (1997). While we refuse to set a rigid timeline for determining when a response to a followup inquiry is not timely, we conclude that James' failure to answer the repeated inquiries from the Counsel for Discipline was prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of DR 1-102(A)(5). There is also clear and convincing evidence that James violated DR 6-101(A)(3) by neglecting Bradley's personal injury case. Most important to the charge of neglect is that James made no attempt to contact Craig or any possible personal representative about Bradley's claim prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. James argues that he was under no duty to contact Craig or any possible personal representative because (1) the attorney-client relationship ended when Bradley died and (2) he did not, nor did he wish to, represent Craig or the personal representative of the estate. Moreover, James argues that even if he had a duty to contact Bradley's personal representative, no prejudice occurred, because after Bradley's death, there was no witness to the accident and, therefore, her claim was of little or no value to the estate. Generally speaking, an attorney's representation of a client ends, absent an agreement otherwise, upon the death of that client. See, Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 31(2)(b) (2000); 7 Am. Jur. 2d Attorneys at Law § 184 (1997). Thus, for instance, James lacked the authority to file the claim without the approval of Bradley's personal representative. See Long v. Krause, 104 Neb. 599, 178 N.W. 188 (1920). However, James was also without authority to decide that it was acceptable to allow Bradley's claim to become time barred without the approval of her personal representative. In other words, even after Bradley's death, James had an affirmative duty to protect the claim that she had entrusted to him. See, Restatement, supra, § 31, comment e. ; id., § 33; id., § 33, comment b. See, also, Canon 2, EC 2-32 and DR 2-110(2). By failing to alert Craig or the personal representative of the impending expiration of the statute of limitations, James deprived the appropriate decisionmaker of the choice to proceed with the claim and thereby deprived the estate of a potential asset. Such conduct constitutes neglect and establishes a violation of DR 6-101(A)(3).