Opinion ID: 2137456
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: austin charges

Text: Goetz represented Leslie and Helen Austin in two matters. The first was a civil action brought by the Federal Land Bank of St. Paul. Goetz successfully resisted the Bank's motion for summary judgment but then appeared at the trial and stipulated to an entry of judgment against the Austins in the amount of $92,547.03 plus interest exceeding $41,000. The Austins had not authorized Goetz to stipulate to the judgment. Nor did Goetz notify the Austins that a judgment had been entered. In the second matter, Goetz represented the Austins during early 1987 in a suit brought in a South Dakota court. When Goetz failed to respond to a motion for summary judgment, judgment was entered against the Austins. Goetz did not tell the Austins about the entry of judgment. When the Austins learned, in April 1987, that the sheriff was planning to execute the judgment by levying against their personal property, they contacted Goetz and instructed him to file a bankruptcy petition. Austins paid Goetz a $1,000 retainer. In September 1987, the Austins learned that their land was being advertised for sale. Austins again contacted Goetz and Goetz filed the Austins' bankruptcy petition October 20, 1987, more than five months after he told the Austins he had filed the petition. Goetz represented the Austins at the first creditors' meeting in December 1987. In April 1988, Austins received notice that their petition was in danger of being dismissed for lack of prosecution. Goetz responded, but Austins hired other counsel and Goetz withdrew. Goetz submitted a statement in December 1988 showing a balance of $1,110.71 due for legal services, some of which was for work on the bankruptcy petition. The statement did not acknowledge receipt of the $1,000 retainer paid to Goetz by the Austins in April 1987. The hearing panel found that Goetz neglected the legal matters the Austins entrusted to him, acted in ways that prejudiced the Austins' interests, failed to inform the Austins about significant developments in their cases, deceived the Austins concerning the work he claimed to be performing, and charged an excessive fee in violation of NDCPR DR 1-102(A)(4), (5), (6), DR 6-101(A)(3), DR 7-101(A)(1), (2), (3); NDRPC 1.3, 1.4(a), (b); NDPRLDD 1.2(A)(3), (8).