Opinion ID: 1167668
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Katus Matter

Text: In July 1985, Marilyn Katus retained petitioner to represent her in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. At petitioner's request, Katus paid $125 as an advance on attorney fees and an additional $125 as an advance for costs. Petitioner prepared the pleadings relevant to Katus's case and had her sign them. Between September 1985 and March 1986, Katus made a number of calls to petitioner's office to determine the status of her case. All of the calls went unanswered. In April 1986, Katus met with petitioner, who informed her that the papers in her case had been filed. In fact, petitioner had not filed anything in connection with the case. Katus later made approximately 30 calls to petitioner's office to determine the status of her case. On each occasion she was unable to speak with petitioner but left messages for him to return her calls. He failed to do so. Ultimately, Katus retained the services of another attorney to handle the dissolution. Petitioner never returned any portion of the $250 advanced by Katus for fees and costs. The State Bar Court concluded that by his conduct in the Katus matter, petitioner wilfully violated sections 6068, [2] 6103, [3] and 6106 [4] of the Business and Professions Code, [5] and rules 2-111(A)(3) [6] and 6-101(A)(2) [7] of the then existing Rules of Professional Conduct. [8] The hearing panel further found that petitioner's misrepresentation to Katus that the pleading had been filed constituted an act of moral turpitude.