Opinion ID: 2777288
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Count 2 – The Pike Complaint

Text: Jon A. Pike retained Mr. Rossi to represent him in a “lemon law” case. Mr. Pike filed a complaint against Mr. Rossi with the ODC on August 22, 2011, alleging that Mr. Rossi had failed to communicate with him about his case. After receiving Mr. Pike’s complaint, the ODC directed Mr. Rossi to communicate with Mr. Pike within ten days. 6 The relevant portion of Rule 8.1(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides: [A] lawyer in connection with . . . a disciplinary matter, shall not: . . . (b) fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter, or knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority[.] 7 On December 14, 2012, the Investigative Panel issued an admonishment to Mr. Rossi for violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.4(b) and 8.1(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct in connection with his representation of Mr. Williams. The Panel also directed Mr. Rossi to report his depression issues to the Lawyer Assistance Program and verify that he had done so within thirty days. Mr. Rossi failed to comply with this directive. Due to this failure, the ODC sent Mr. Rossi a letter directing him to contact the Lawyer Assistance Program and to provide verification that he had done so by February 11, 2013. Mr. Rossi did not respond to this letter. The ODC sent Mr. Rossi a second letter requesting verification that he had contacted the Lawyer Assistance Program. Again, Mr. Rossi failed to respond to the ODC. Because Mr. Rossi failed to respond to the Investigative Panel’s directive, the ODC prepared a motion to reopen the Williams complaint, which was granted by the Investigative Panel. 5 Mr. Rossi complied with this directive. However, Mr. Pike filed a second complaint against Mr. Rossi on September 26, 2012, alleging that Mr. Rossi had again failed to respond to his telephone calls, text messages and emails for over two months. Mr. Pike requested that Mr. Rossi return all of the records relating to the case to him. Mr. Pike subsequently obtained a new lawyer who promptly settled his “lemon law” case. Mr. Pike described the harm he suffered as a result of Mr. Rossi’s failure to communicate with him and failure to diligently work on his case as follows: Well, it’s frustration more than anything, with the car dealer and with the legal system taking a long time and not knowing what’s going on. . . . There was a lot of frustration. There was a lot of my own time and leg work that I put in trying to resolve the case. I have no knowledge of the legalities and so that’s why, you know, I got a lawyer. Besides frustration and time, and there is a possibility of financial losses, yeah, but it was frustrating more than anything else. The ODC sent a letter to Mr. Rossi, requesting a response to the allegations contained in Mr. Pike’s September 26, 2012, complaint. Mr. Rossi did not respond to the ODC’s request. The ODC sent two additional letters to Mr. Rossi (in January 2013 and February 2013), requesting a response to Mr. Pike’s complaint. Mr. Rossi did not respond to either of these ODC letters. The Board determined that Mr. Rossi violated Rules 1.3 (duty to act with reasonable diligence, see footnote 3, supra) and 1.4(a) (duty to keep the client reasonably informed, see footnote 4, supra) in connection with his representation of Mr. Pike. Further, the Board found that Mr. Rossi’s numerous failures to respond to the ODC constituted a violation of Rule 8.1(b) (see footnote 6, supra). 6