Opinion ID: 2334156
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Frumkin Matter

Text: In May 1981, Israel Frumkin retained respondent to represent him in an action against his landlord for the return of the security deposit and the payment of damages in excess of $3,000. Eager to determine the status of his case, Frumkin telephoned respondent's office twice a week between September and December 1981. Respondent rarely returned his telephone calls. In early 1982, respondent informed Frumkin that a complaint had been filed. Thereafter, respondent forwarded interrogatories to Frumkin in April 1982, which Frumkin answered and returned within one day. Respondent, however, never furnished the answers to her adversary in the lawsuit. As a result, the complaint was dismissed on May 21, 1982. Respondent neither informed Frumkin of the dismissal of the complaint nor filed a motion for its reinstatement. Between September 1982 and July 1983, respondent made numerous misrepresentations to Frumkin that trial dates had been scheduled and adjourned for various reasons. In early 1984, Frumkin took it upon himself to call the court to determine the status of the matter. He was advised, at that time, that his suit had been dismissed for failure to answer interrogatories. When confronted by Frumkin, respondent denied the dismissal and continued to insist that Frumkin would get a check very soon. As of the date of the ethics hearing on May 17, 1985, Frumkin had not received any monies representing a recovery from or a settlement of his lawsuit. The presentment found that respondent's conduct in this matter had been unethical when she failed to respond to Frumkin's reasonable requests for information and when she misrepresented the status of the matter to him, by failing to advise him of its dismissal and by providing him with false trial dates. Respondent also represented Frumkin, in 1983, in connection with the incorporation of a business and with the purchase of a condominium unit. In the incorporation matter, Frumkin complained that respondent had never delivered the corporate kit to him. The committee found that respondent's conduct had not been unethical because it constituted common practice and because there was no evidence that Frumkin had ever demanded the kit. With regard to the condominium purchase, it appears that Frumkin was to receive a $250 credit at the closing of title. Although Frumkin believed that he was to receive the $250 sum as a direct payment, the closing statement indicates that he received a credit in that amount. Accordingly, the committee found no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of respondent with respect to this transaction.