Opinion ID: 2633450
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Act

Text: {14} Another of respondent's clients filed a disciplinary complaint based upon respondent's failure to act. In or about March 1997, a particular client retained respondent in a child custody matter and paid respondent a $1,587.44 retainer. Respondent filed an entry of appearance, sent one letter to opposing counsel, and allegedly reviewed correspondence provided by the client. Respondent took no other action in the case. {15} By letter dated July 17, 1997, the client terminated respondent's services and requested a statement of account and a refund of the unused portion of the $1,500 retainer fee to me . . . by July 31, 1997. The client wrote to respondent again on November 14, 1997, on June 26, 1999, and on July 26, 1999. Each time, he requested an accounting and refund of monies not earned. No response from respondent was received, apart from four letters from respondent's secretary detailing respondent's various illnesses and promising to respond as soon as possible. Respondent's response to the client's disciplinary complaint was that she had treated him poorly and that because he was a friend she put his requests on the back burner to attend to `regular' clients of mine. On August 25, 2000, almost three years after she was terminated, respondent refunded the retainer fee. {16} This Court has previously noted that one of the most damaging disciplinary violations is when an attorney fails to act for his or her client and also fails to communicate with that client. In re Smith, 115 N.M. 769, 771, 858 P.2d 857, 859 (1993). The ABA Comment to Rule 16-103 notes that `no professional shortcoming is more widely resented than procrastination.' It further notes that even if the client's interests are not adversely affected by a lawyer's lack of diligence, `unreasonable delay can cause a client needless anxiety and undermine confidence in the lawyer's trustworthiness.' The same is no less true of the lawyer's failure to keep his clients informed about their legal matters. Id. {17} As in the previous matter, respondent was suffering from physical and mental ailments during the time she failed to respond to the client's request for refund and statement of account. Respondent's decision to abdicate her law practice during the times of illness, rather than to seek aid from other attorneys, was not an acceptable decision. This Court has repeatedly stated that a medical condition, though met with sympathy and compassion, is not to be considered as a mitigating factor in discipline absent a meaningful and sustained period of successful rehabilitation. See In re Carlton, 2000-NMSC-001, 128 N.M. 419, 993 P.2d 736; In re Smith, 115 N.M. 769, 858 P.2d 857 (1993); In re Sparks, 108 N.M. 249, 771 P.2d 182 (1989). All law practices should strive to ensure that safeguards are in place to protect client interests in the event of attorney illness or other misfortune. See In re Hyde, 1997-NMSC-064,¶¶ 20, 21, 124 at 366, 950 P.2d at 809. {18} Sole practitioners might be more vulnerable to disciplinary situations by virtue of their not having the benefit of working with a support system that might include secretarial support, paralegals, or other attorneys. It is therefore imperative that the solo attorney, who may be suffering from problems that impact his or her practice of law, make arrangements with another attorney or attorneys to assist if it become necessary. A client can be harmed just as seriously by an attorney who fails to discharge ethical responsibilities because of illness, as by one who does so for another reason. Rule 16-116(A) compels lawyers not to undertake representation, or, if undertaken, to withdraw from the representation, if `the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the client....'  In re Martin, 1999-NMSC-022, ¶ 15, 127 N.M. 321, 325, 980 P.2d 646, 650. Clients cannot be left floundering with no direction and no communication. At the very least, consistent communication with the client is a mandate to all law practices. Attorneys who fail to communicate in a timely and quality manner with their clients are destined to have disciplinary problems. The lawyer cannot leave it to the client to initiate communication and still satisfy his obligations under Rule 16-104. In re Reif, 1996-NMSC-026, 121 N.M. 758, 762, 918 P.2d 344, 348. When one contracts with an attorney for legal services, he or she is entitled to expect that the attorney will take action of some sort. If more information is needed from the client in order to proceed, it is the attorney's responsibility to notify the client; it is not the client's responsibility to initiate all inquiries to the attorney in order to insure that essential steps are being taken. In re Carrasco, 106 N.M. 294, 295, 742 P.2d 506, 507 (1987).