Opinion ID: 1273411
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Ortiz matter.

Text: The third and final instance of petitioner's misconduct concerns one Tulio M. Ortiz. In mid-1970, Ortiz was arrested and jailed after an argument with his former brother-in-law, Ricardo Echevarria, who pressed charges of assault and battery against him. Ortiz retained an attorney to represent him in the criminal proceeding and gave the attorney evidence indicating the charges were false. The attorney succeeded in having the case dismissed. Interested in recouping the money he had spent defending against the criminal charges, [3] and with restoring his reputation, Ortiz called on petitioner, gave him the facts of the case, and asked him to proceed against Echevarria. Ortiz testified that petitioner agreed to file an action for malicious prosecution. Ortiz told petitioner at their first meeting that a few days had passed since his criminal case had been dismissed and that he did not know how long thereafter remained to file suit. Petitioner replied that the statute of limitations was already running out, and that Ortiz should take up the matter immediately. Petitioner asked for a $250 advance, promising that he would file at least within one week's time. Ortiz was compelled to borrow the money. He returned to petitioner's office on September 27, 1970, and paid him in cash; petitioner thereupon gave him a receipt marked Retainer and Costs. At this second meeting petitioner reiterated that the case would be filed shortly. Petitioner proposed a 33 percent contingency fee arrangement, and said he would deduct from the fee the money already paid. Ortiz agreed to the proposal. Ortiz had difficulty contacting petitioner after the September 27th visit. He called petitioner six or seven times and once, in December 1970, managed to reach him. Ortiz testified as follows concerning this telephone conversation: Well, I asked him about what was happening in the case, I haven't received any information with regard to it, and he said that he had been ill and that he had instructed or he was instructing his secretaries to proceed to type the papers and to send them in, and so I was satisfied and I told him that later on I will contact him again. That same month, Ortiz visited petitioner's office. Petitioner told him a secretary in the office had lost the papers and that he would instruct the secretary to again type the papers so that the matter could be filed. Ortiz did not see any papers in connection with his case except for the handwritten notes which petitioner made at the first interview. Petitioner admits he never prepared any pleadings in the case. Ortiz next contacted petitioner on February 13, 1971. He told petitioner that Echevarria had left Los Angeles to reside in El Salvador. Two days later, on February 15, 1971, Ortiz wrote petitioner, expressing doubts as to petitioner's stated intention to prosecute the malicious prosecution action. The letter states in part: For months I have had difficulty in talking to you as your answering service will never allow my calls to go through. In my several unannounced visits to your office I have been unable to find you and have received the following array of excuses: I have been out of town. I have been ill. I have been tied up in court. I think my secretary has already mailed the papers out. They tell me the man has already been served. Papers got lost, I'll have my secretary reissue the papers. On Saturday, February 13th ... I indicated to you that I had been informed that the man I was suing had left the country to reside in El Salvador. To this you answered me that it was better this way. That now you would serve him and he would not be able to show up at court. You asked me then to come in to the office on Monday, ... I arrived at your office and was told that you were not in that day.... I have now felt suspicion about your intent to fulfill your part of the contract.... Ortiz asked petitioner to return the $250 advance. Ortiz never heard from petitioner. He sent another letter, dated March 26, 1971, via certified mail, return receipt requested. Ortiz expressed his hope in this letter that the matter could be settled amicably, but noted that if he did not receive satisfaction within five days, he would complain to the State Bar. Petitioner never returned any of Ortiz' money. Petitioner presented no documentary evidence to rebut Ortiz' accusations, relying instead upon his own testimony. Petitioner claims he urged Ortiz not to sue because the entire dispute was a family matter. Ortiz repeatedly denied that petitioner recommended against suit. When asked by the State Bar examiner to explain the meaning of the word costs in the receipt for Ortiz' $250 advance, petitioner testified that he told Ortiz that if suit were brought there would be certain costs and in the event he did not sue, the advance would be included in the retainer. Petitioner also told Ortiz that if a slander suit were instituted, a $500 bond would have to be deposited. Petitioner claims he brought peace to the Ortiz-Echevarria family. According to petitioner, he entered the fray, spoke to Echevarria and solved the situation. He gives no details as to how he resolved the matter. Although he testified he prepared a complete memorandum of facts and law on the statutes on the slander or libel $500 bond, petitioner never presented the committee with any document relating to the Ortiz matter. He said he had looked for his papers on the case, but could not find them. (3) The evidence clearly establishes a common course of conduct. Petitioner accepts a fee, promises to perform legal services, and then fails to follow through for his clients. In each instance outlined above, the record indicates he retained his fee despite avoiding his clients and ultimately abandoning their interests. The record shows professional misconduct on petitioner's part and amply supports the findings of the disciplinary board.