Opinion ID: 1816818
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: neglect of a legal matter

Text: The committee contends that respondent violated Disciplinary Rules 1-102 and 6-101(A)(3) by neglecting to obtain the partial releases after receiving his fee and funds from his client. DR 1-102 provides: (A) A lawyer shall not: (1) Violate a Disciplinary Rule. (2) Circumvent a Disciplinary Rule through actions of another. (3) Engage in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude. (4) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. (5) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. (6) Engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. DR 6-101(A)(3) provides: A lawyer shall not: . . . . . (3) Neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. Respondent performed the acts of sale on June 30, 1981. On October 1, 1981, three months later, Mr. Marengo was forced to retain new counsel to obtain the releases which respondent failed to secure. Respondent claims that he phoned the Slidell banks on several occasions prior to October, 1981, but his calls were not returned. He did not produce any records of these calls nor any other evidence that he made the calls. Furthermore, he did not send any correspondence to the banks nor did he attempt to meet with any of the bank employees prior to October. Although respondent's dilatory approach is not excusable, it is noteworthy that Mr. Marengo's second counsel, Alvin Perry, also experienced difficulty in obtaining the releases. [3] Perry was retained on October 1, 1981 and the releases could not be obtained and recorded until February 22, 1982. This delay ensued in spite of Perez' payment of the necessary funds to the banks on October 23 and 30, 1981. In Louisiana State Bar Association v. Martin, 451 So.2d 561 (La.1984), the attorney neglected six distinct legal matters, each involving the recordation of acts of sale and mortgages. Martin failed to show any mitigating evidence and there was evidence that he had received six prior reprimands from the bar association for prior misconduct of the same nature. Respondent's neglect in obtaining the releases was violative of DR 6-101(A)(3). However, his conduct in this regard was much less culpable than the pattern of neglect present in Martin. Martin is further distinguished from this case by the absence of prior discipline against respondent. In light of the foregoing, respondent is reprimanded for this aspect of his alleged misconduct.