Opinion ID: 1510088
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Complaint of Mary L. Szarvas

Text: In May 1994, Mary L. Szarvas paid Respondent a fee of $600.00 and retained him to obtain a divorce on the ground of mutual and voluntary separation which commenced November 6, 1993. On May 19, 1994, Respondent filed a complaint for a limited divorce with a copy of the parties' separation agreement attached. Respondent personally served the summons on Mr. Szarvas on June 2, 1994. When Mr. Szarvas did not respond, Respondent obtained an order of default on November 18, 1994. On April 26, 1995 and again on June 14, 1995, Respondent filed supplemental complaints for absolute divorce. On each occasion, a copy of the complaint was mailed to Mr. Szarvas, but no summons was issued or served upon the defendant. Ms. Szarvas, her sister Linda Main, and Respondent appeared before a standing examiner to have testimony taken on July 7, 1995 pursuant to Rule 2-542. Mr. Szarvas did not appear. On July 21, 1995, Respondent filed the transcript of the testimony with the Circuit Court for Frederick County. However, this testimony was not ripe since it was taken prior to an answer or entry of any order of default regarding the supplemental complaints for absolute divorce. On November 15, 1995, Respondent filed a request for order of default which was denied because service had not been effected on the defendant as to the supplemental complaints pursuant to Rule 1-321(b). On December 6, 1995, Respondent filed another supplemental complaint for absolute divorce and mailed a copy to Mr. Szarvas. Mr. Szarvas did not respond to the supplemental complaint. On April 5, 1996, Respondent filed a supplemental complaint for absolute divorce. A writ of summons was issued. There is no record of service of the summons and supplemental complaint. On December 6, 1996, Respondent requested the Clerk of Court to reissue a summons for private service upon the defendant. On December 22, 1996, Mr. Szarvas was served, but he never filed a answer. On June 16, 1997, the court entered an order of default. Testimony was taken at Respondent's law office on June 20, 1997 before a standing examiner, and a transcript of the testimony was filed with the court on November 4, 1997. Ms. Szarvas learned from the clerk's office that the June 20, 1997 testimony had become stale since it was not filed within ninety (90) days of the taking of testimony. After June 20, 1997, Ms. Szarvas left telephone messages and notes at Respondent's office frequently. He did not reply except to instruct her to attend and give testimony before an examiner on two later occasions. The Respondent instructed Ms. Szarvas to come to his office to give testimony on January 30, 1998 at 4:00 p.m. Ms. Szarvas and Ms. Main waited at Respondent's office on this date from 3:55-4:30 p.m., but Respondent never arrived. On February 10, 1998, Ms. Szarvas filed a complaint against Respondent with the Commission. On February 18, 1998, the Commission sent a letter to Respondent, enclosing a copy of Ms. Szarvas's complaint and requesting a response within fifteen (15) days. Respondent did not reply to this request. On March 2, 1998, testimony in the Szarvas matter was again taken before a standing examiner. The Respondent filed the transcript of the testimony with the court on March 5, 1998. On March 12, 1998, the Commission sent a second notice to Respondent regarding the Szarvas complaint, requesting a reply within ten (10) days of receipt. This letter was sent by certified mail, and the return receipt was signed by Respondent. Respondent claimed he did not receive the first notice and requested another copy of the complaint. On March 25, 1998, the Commission sent Respondent a copy of the Szarvas complaint, and requested a response within fifteen (15) days. In return, Respondent sent the Commission a copy of the judgment of absolute divorce entered on March 30, 1998, but made no further reply. On August 25, 1998, Commission investigator John Reburn called Respondent and left a message requesting a return call. Respondent did not return this call. On August 26, 1998, Mr. Reburn wrote to Respondent requesting a meeting to discuss the complaint and review the file of Mary Szarvas. Respondentdid not reply to this request. On September 8 and 9, 1998, Mr. Reburn called Respondent and left messages requesting a return call to which Respondent did not reply. On September 9, 1998, Mr. Reburn left a business card at Respondent's law office with a note requesting a phone call. On September 10, 1998, Mr. Reburn contacted Respondent by telephone and requested a meeting. Respondent declined this request and chose to discuss the matter by telephone. In this conversation, Respondent acknowledged that testimony in the Szarvas matter became stale and had to be retaken. Additionally, Respondent explained that it took four years to obtain Ms. Szarvas's divorce because Mr. Szarvas often moved and was therefore difficult to serve. Ms. Szarvas was aware of Mr. Szarvas's address throughout Respondent's representation.