Opinion ID: 2395438
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: analysis of violations

Text: Rule 1.5 (b) states: When the lawyer has not regularly represented the client, the basis or rate of the fee shall be communicated to the client, in writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation. Respondent had not regularly represented Mr. DePass, yet he never communicated the basis for his fee in writing. Respondent's conduct constitutes a violation of Rule 1.5(b). See In re Williams, Bar Docket No. 212-94 (BPR March 29, 1996).
Rule 1.3(a) provides: A lawyer shall represent a client zealously and diligently within the bounds of the law. See In re Dietz, 633 A.2d 850 (D.C.1993). Comment 1 to the Rule observes: This duty requires the lawyer to pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite opposition, obstruction, or personal inconvenience to the lawyer, and to take whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client's cause or endeavor. A lawyer should act with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client. Comment 7 observes that [n]eglect of client matters is a serious violation of the obligation of diligence. Neglect has been defined as indifference and a consistent failure to carry out the obligations that the lawyer has assumed to the client or a conscious disregard of the responsibilities owed to the client. See In re Reback, 487 A.2d 235, 238 (D.C.1985), adopted in relevant part, 513 A.2d 226 (D.C. 1986) (en banc). Although a finding of neglect requires more than a single act or omission, the requisite pattern of negligent behavior is present here. See In re Banks, 461 A.2d 1038 (D.C. 1983). Respondent failed to respond to the discovery requests of his client's adversaries, their motion to compel, or to the court order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed. Respondent's lack of diligence and zeal in pursuing his client's case resulted in dismissal of the case. Consequently, Respondent's conduct constitutes a violation of Rule 1.3(a). See In re Lyles, 680 A.2d 408 (D.C.1996).
Rule 1.3 (c) states: A lawyer shall act with reasonable promptness in representing a client. Respondent failed to act at all at critical junctures of his client's case. He did not file responses on behalf of his client either to the District of Columbia's discovery requests, the motion to compel, or the Court's order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed. Consequently, Respondent's conduct constitutes a violation of Rule 1.3(c). Cf. In re Stiller, Bar Docket No. 430-88, et al. (BPR July 31, 1996); In re Grimes, Bar Docket No. 151-89, et al. (BPR May 29, 1996), affirmed, 687 A.2d 198.
Rule 1.4(a) provides: A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. Comment 1 to the Rule states that [t]he client should have sufficient information to participate intelligently in decisions concerning the objectives of the representation and the means by which they are to be pursued, to the extent the client is willing and able to do so. Comment 2 further instructs that a client is entitled to whatever information the client wishes about all aspects of the representation unless the client expressly consents not to have certain information passed on. Respondent last spoke with his client regarding his case in May 1992. Thereafter, despite numerous telephone calls and a letter in October 1992 from Mr. DePass to Respondent regarding the status of his case, Respondent did not communicate the status of the case to his client. Respondent's conduct is in violation of Rule 1.4(a). Cf. Stiller, supra; Grimes, supra.