Opinion ID: 2176514
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Style of Respondent's Practice

Text: Respondent was hired in this case to evaluate a trial transcript to determine whether there was a basis to urge ineffective assistance on appeal. He was found to have neglected this work. Respondent testified that he had expended between 24 and 30 hours in carrying out this assignment (reviewing the record, traveling, and attending conferences), but he had no supporting records. Respondent testified that he had ultimately concluded that there was no basis for Mr. Toogood to urge ineffective assistance as an appeal ground, but he did not communicate that conclusion to the client on a timely basis. [4] The evidence also showed that, from the time he undertook his work from Mr. Toogood in December, 1988, until August 22, 1989, (by which time the client had already complained to Bar Counsel), Respondent had no communication whatever with the Mr. Toogood. Even after Respondent received a May 8, 1989, client letter expressly complaining about lack of communication, Respondent did not respond for three months. It was only after the appellate brief had been filed in Mr. Toogood's criminal case that Respondent communicated to the client the negative results of his review of the trial record. The Hearing Committee found that Respondent's style of practice, both as revealed by his handling of the Toogood matter and by other evidence, created a serious risk of future neglect violations. H.Comm.Rep. 39. On pages 45-48 of its Report, the Hearing Committee highlighted several other troublesome aspects of Respondent's practice, the facts as to which are amply supported by substantive evidence in the record, as follows: (1) Respondent had primarily a volume-type practice.... He handles approximately two hundred cases a year and accepts between 80 and 90 new cases each year. A very substantial portion of Respondent's practice apparently involves criminal defense work for persons of modest means, a substantial number of whom are incarcerated. (2) Respondent is just not organized. His lack of organization is the [bane] of my existence and the [bane] of Ms. Stow's existence. He candidly admitted: I have never been organized and I never will be. (3) Respondent's file system (a euphemism) was haphazard, to say the least. Respondent does not even open a file for every client he takes on. It did not appear that Respondent had established a separate file for either client involved in the instant proceedings. (4) Respondent has an unusual way of handling written telephone messages. He places all current messages in a suit pocket and keeps them there for one month. The prior month's messages are moved from the pocket to a briefcase, while earlier messages for the current year are relegated to a box in the back seat of Respondent's car. The archives of his phone message slips i.e., those older than one year are apparently stored in Respondent's basement. (5) Respondent had a strong distaste for writing things down.... He recognized that it would be a better practice to have more written communications with clients, he felt that it destroys the relationship that he has had with clients over the years. (6) Respondent did not urge that high-volume, solo criminal practice inevitably creates a lack of organization. Indeed, at the hearing, Respondent stressed that, in terms of his own lack of organization, I am much different than a lot of people. Tr. 5/17/91, at 85. We accept all these Hearing Committee findings as based on adequate record evidence.