Opinion ID: 2182224
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: respondent's neglect as to the first case

Text: This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent neglected the legal matter entrusted to him by his client Jefferson, i.e., the First Case. This court further finds by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent failed to carry out the agreement that he made with Jefferson, i.e. to represent Jefferson properly in the First Case. All the Respondent did as concerns the First Case was to file suit on behalf of Jefferson, against the Macks and send out a certified letter enclosing the suit to the Macks. The Macks did not acknowledge nor sign for the letter. The first accident occurred on April 25, 1978 but the Respondent did not file suit until January 18, 1979. The evidence does not show that the Respondent did anything further. In the Second Case, the Respondent had used a private process server and was successful in achieving service in that case. In the First Case he did not use a private process server. He attempted to explain why not by saying that Jefferson wanted to take back the First Case from him. If that were the case, that would indicate that Jefferson was unhappy with the lack of progress being made by the Respondent and that fact should have spurred the Respondent to do something to alleviate the situation  at least to hire a private process server. But I do not find that the Respondent's explanation (that he did not use a process server because Jefferson wanted the file back) rings true. Respondent waited almost nine months before he even instituted suit in the First Case. Even if Jefferson was unhappy and wanted to take back the case, the Respondent would not give back the cases. Jefferson tried to get rid of the Respondent in about August of 1979 and all through 1980 and 1981 and all through the present day but the Respondent would not let go of the First Case (or the Second Case) unless Jefferson paid him $750. When Jefferson could not pay $750 to the Respondent, as the Respondent well knew that meant that the Respondent was still the lawyer for Jefferson. Hence he could and should have utilized a private process server. Moreover the Respondent represented Spell in the very same accident (First Case) and had achieved service in Spell's case. He was in touch with the attorney who represented Spell, filed answers to interrogatories on behalf of Spell and still was unable to achieve service against the very same Defendants. Perhaps Milton Mack, Jr. was in the military but there is no indication that Jocelyn T. Mack was. In fact, the Respondent knew her address which was 2400 Loyola Southway  right in Baltimore City. He did not ever reissue any summons for her. Coming back to his reason for failing to reissue and failing to use a private process server, Respondent testified that he would have released the file (or files) if Jefferson had paid him for work he had done, money he had spent and money that Jefferson owed him. I do not find this explanation to be true. He wants to explain his neglect of the First Case by arguing that he was having a problem with Jefferson. But I find that any problem that existed was caused by Respondent's neglect of the First Case. So his argument is circular. Even if this were not so, he was still Jefferson's lawyer despite Jefferson's attempt in August of 1979 to get rid of him (this was merely the first attempt by Jefferson to do so). An analysis of the evidence shows that the Respondent's explanation that his neglect was caused by Jefferson's wanting the file back, is spurious. As to being paid for work done, the evidence shows that the Respondent and Jefferson had consummated a retainer agreement. So Respondent was entitled to a one-third percentage of whatever he recovered for Jefferson and if he recovered nothing he was entitled to nothing. As to money he had spent, the only money that the Respondent had spent as regards the First Case was $19. Even though the Respondent was assured in writing that his expenses would be protected he failed to turn over his file to Jefferson's new attorney, one Michael H. Simons, Esq. The Respondent admitted that he had received Simons' letter dated January 2, 1980 which enclosed a letter from Jefferson discharging the Respondent. In the Simons letter, Simons informed the Respondent that Jefferson wanted him (Simons) to represent him and sought information as to the First Case. However, the Respondent did not correspond with Simons. Simons then wrote a second letter (dated January 28, 1980) which confirmed a phone conversation with the Respondent. The second letter indicated that Simons would protect the Respondent's itemized expenses but noted that the Respondent would not discuss that matter further. So the net result was that although the Respondent says that he would turn over the file if he were paid for the money he had spent yet he would not communicate with Jefferson's new attorney with respect to what money he had spent. Actually Respondent gave varying explanations of what it would take before he would release the files. Jefferson wanted back the files with respect to both accidents. At one point, the Respondent said that he wanted $750 for both files. Yet at another point, he testified that the proof of what the $750 was for was supplied by his Exhibit Seven (for identification). This was a To Whom it May Concern memorandum advising that I release the papers concerning this accident (obviously the First Case since it says accident date April 25, 1978) ... in consideration of payment of advanced costs and a nominal fee. Petitioner testified that a nominal fee meant $300 or $350. Whatever version one accepts, the fact is that the Respondent never returned either file to Jefferson or his new attorney. Hence the Respondent remained Jefferson's attorney. His attempt to explain his inaction and neglect by the excuse that Jefferson wanted back the cases is simply a smokescreen and totally unconvincing. DISCIPLINARY RULES VIOLATED This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated: Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3) Disciplinary Rule 7-101(A)(2) and (3) See AGC v. Willcher, 287 Md. 74 [411 A.2d 83] (1980)