Opinion ID: 1593294
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Count I The Tyson Matter

Text: In February 2003, Lugene Tyson retained respondent to represent him in a child custody and support case. Mr. Tyson paid respondent a fee of $1,000. Approximately one month later, respondent filed a pleading on behalf of Mr. Tyson entitled Petition for Custody, Termination of Wage Assignment and/or Garnishment and Return of Child Support Payments. Initially, Mr. Tyson was able to communicate with respondent; however, as time went on, Mr. Tyson had increasing difficulty contacting respondent and believed respondent was avoiding his calls. [1] In October 2003, while the case was ongoing, Mr. Tyson received a copy of a motion filed by respondent in which he sought to withdraw from representing Mr. Tyson. As a result, Mr. Tyson was forced to handle the case on his own because he could not afford new counsel. The ODC alleges that respondent's conduct violated Rules 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client) and 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.