Opinion ID: 1347088
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Alice Matherly

Text: On April 26, 1992, Ms. Matherly retained Hardison to pursue a products liability claim against Dow Corning as the manufacturer of silicone implants, and Dr. Fred Pulido, the doctor who performed her implant surgery. Hardison assured Ms. Matherly the complaint had been filed. She met with him on August 8, 1994, at which time she asked for proof of filing. Hardison responded he would provide proof within one week; Ms. Matherly set a deadline of August 15, 1994. The lawsuit was finally filed on August 12, 1994. By letter dated August 15, 1994, Ms. Matherly discharged Hardison and demanded the return of her files. On October 21, 1994, Hardison sent Ms. Matherly's file to her new attorney. Ms. Matherly ultimately received a portion of a second global settlement from the Dow Corning lawsuits, but contends that if her complaint had been filed timely, she would have obtained a larger settlement from the first global settlement. However, no evidence was submitted to support this contention. Hardison refutes that he was retained by Ms. Matherly on April 26, 1992, in that he does not agree to represent anybody in a product liability and/or a medical malpractice action until it is determined there is a valid cause of action. He states that Ms. Matherly did not discover until 1992 that actions were being filed with respect to silicone breast implants, and the statute of limitations, at least five years, would not run for some time. The liability and venue issues of the litigation were complicated, therefore, it took time to file the complaint. He claims Ms. Matherly was never told her case was filed prior to his meeting with her on August 8, 1994. He claims his paralegal told him the suit had been filed at that time; he shared this information with Ms. Matherly and provided her with a draft of the complaint. Ms. Matherly called him that day or the next day to inform him her lawsuit was not of record. The complaint was filed on August 12, 1994. Regarding the delay in delivering her file to her new attorney, Hardison claims logistical problems. He contends the file was delivered prior to the filing of the ethics complaint. He states there is no evidence to support Ms. Matherly's allegation that she would have received more money if she had settled earlier. Hardison was charged with a violation of Rule 1.3 (Diligence), Rule 1.15(b) (Safekeeping property) and Rule 8.4(c) (Misconduct). The Panel found no violation of the rules and recommended dismissal of the charges. ODC contests this finding as it relates to Rule 1.3 and Rule 1.15(b).