Opinion ID: 2614963
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ER 1.3: Diligence

Text: The Committee found, and the Commission agreed, that Respondent violated ER 1.3, which requires that [a] lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. Diligence requires the exercise of caution and care in the handling of legal matters. See 26A C.J.S. Diligence 943-46 (1956) (defining diligence in many contexts and citing cases); Webster's Third New International Dictionary 633 (unabr. 1965). Surely, Respondent's conduct is not consistent with these notions. Respondent conceded that his attention was shared by more than two hundred other matters and that his judgment at the time he handled this matter may have been clouded. Although Respondent's unwieldy workload helps us understand why he lacked diligence, it does not excuse his conduct. See e.g., In re Cardenas, 164 Ariz. 149, 151, 791 P.2d 1032, 1034 (1990). A lawyer must not accept representation if the lawyer's workload prohibits handling a matter in compliance with our professional rules. See State v. Smith, 140 Ariz. 355, 363, 681 P.2d 1374, 1382 (1984) (warning that accepting mores cases than can be properly handled may result not only in reversals for failing to adequately represent clients, but [also] in disciplinary action); ER 1.3 (comment) (A lawyer's workload should be controlled so that each matter can be handled adequately.). If Respondent was too busy to provide competent, diligent representation, he should have either hired adequate help or refused the case  and the fee. Respondent's conduct demonstrates, clearly and convincingly, a lack of diligence by failing to adequately prepare for the criminal trial as well as failing to consult his client regarding the possibility of the jury's consideration of lesser included offenses, see In re Espino, 168 Ariz. 139, 141, 811 P.2d 1076, 1078 (1991) (failing to adequately communicate with client demonstrates a lack of diligence). We therefore concur with the Committee and the Commission and conclude that Respondent failed to provide diligent representation in violation of ER 1.3.