Opinion ID: 1945777
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: neglecting a legal matter

Text: DR6-101(A)(3) provides as follows: A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. The Bar Association charged respondent with numerous violations of this Disciplinary Rule. The Commissioner found only three specific violations because Nader's erratic behavior caused many of his clients to discharge him early, at a time which made it difficult to determine if he had neglected their cases. The Commissioner was correct in each of the three instances although two of them apparently had only minor adverse impacts on the client. [7] The third instance is more serious. Robinson, Noyes and George hired Nader to represent them in a criminal case in Claiborne Parish. He gave them a receipt with the words No time, no sentence written thereon. When they were arraigned he was not present, but he did arrange for another attorney to stand in for him at the arraignment. Prior to the arraignment he told the three clients to plead guilty because he knew we wasn't going to get any time. He also told the clients to plead guilty and not to say anything about it to the lawyer whom he had arranged to stand in for him at the arraignment. All three entered pleas of guilty and thereafter paid Nader another fee and received a receipt which stated To obtain probation and/or fine. At sentencing George received eight years at hard labor, Robinson three years at hard labor, and Noyes three years at hard labor. Noyes' sentence was suspended and she was placed on probation, a condition which required her to spend sixty days in the parish jail. The Commissioner found, and we agree, that there is no evidence to indicate that Nader did anything to improve the legal position of any of the three clients. He had no contact with the judge in the matter until after they had been sentenced, and then only when the judge first called him. Nader's sole contribution was to induce his clients to waive any and all possible rights that they may have been entitled to assert in their defense, solely to obtain his fees. He did nothing for them. Not only did they not receive adequate representation, but they received from Nader no legal representation at all. The Commissioner correctly opined that this conduct goes beyond being prejudicial to the administration of justice and that it is a large black mark against the entire judicial system and a violation of DR1-102(A)5 of serious magnitude. The conduct of respondent in all three instances was indeed neglect of a legal matter and it reflected on his fitness to practice law.