Opinion ID: 2088220
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Neglect in Violation of DR 6-101(A)(3)

Text: The Hearing Committee concluded that Respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him and thereby violated DR 6-101(A)(3). Respondent's neglect was established by evidence related to the untimely motions following the court's order of dismissal in Oliver v. Merit System Protection Board, by evidence showing Respondent's failure to effectuate service of process in several of the civil lawsuits, and by Respondent's failure to give any credible explanation for such omissions. Hearing Comm. Report, pp. 19-20. The Board concurs that this evidence establishes neglect in violation of DR 6-101(A)(3). As the Hearing Committee noted, untimeliness . . . is a classic form of neglect, particularly where, as here, such untimeliness operates to preclude any further effort to patch up prior legal deficiencies. In Oliver v. Merit System Protection Board, the court's order and judgment dismissing the lawsuit was entered on October 9, 1981. Respondent was well aware that his client, Mr. Oliver, was dissatisfied with the defeat reflected in this judgment and was anxious to take appropriate steps to seek relief from the judgment, either by requesting reconsideration, or by filing an amended complaint, or possibly by filing an appeal. Yet, Respondent allowed the time to fritter away, and his client was unable to pursue any possible avenue of relief. The following timetable sets out the details: October 9, 1981: Judgement entered dismissing the entire lawsuit. October 19, 1981: Final date of 10-day period under FED.R.CIV.P. 59 for filing a motion to alter or amend judgment, or for new trial or reconsideration of judgment of October 9. October 26, 1981: Respondent filed motion for enlargement of time in which to file a motion for reconsideration. November 6, 1981: Respondent filed motion for leave to file amended complaint. November 8, 1981: Final date of 30-day period in which to appeal from judgment of October 9. November 9, 1981: Respondent filed substitute motion for leave to file an amended complaint. November 9, 1981: Respondent filed motion for reconsideration directed to judgment of October 9, 1981. December 4, 1981: Court entered order denying motion for enlargement of time in which to file motion for reconsideration. January 20, 1982: Court entered order denying substitute motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Respondent's neglect with respect to service of process was amply established by the evidence concerning Oliver v. Goldschmidt. There, the complaint named 28 defendants. Yet, six of the defendants were not served by any means of process whatsoever. Moreover, 20 of the remaining 22 defendants were dismissed for insufficient service of process because the only attempted service was on DOT employees authorized to accept service on behalf of DOT officials sued in their official capacity rather than in their personal capacity. [8] In sum, the evidence of Respondent's neglect is not only clear and convincing. It is overwhelming.