Opinion ID: 2777288
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Count 1 - The Williams Complaint

Text: Hayden Williams paid Mr. Rossi $2,000.00 to represent him in a lawsuit involving rental property. Mr. Williams alleged that he was not receiving rental monies due to him. Further, Mr. Williams was attempting to regain possession of the rental property. Because Mr. Williams was unable to collect rent on the subject property during 1 The charges in case no. 13-0508 resulted from five separate complaints filed against Mr. Rossi. The charges in case no. 13-1148 arose from one complaint filed against Mr. Rossi. 2 the pendency of the lawsuit, he sought a speedy resolution of the case. However, when Mr. Williams attempted to contact Mr. Rossi and obtain information about the progress of his case, Mr. Rossi failed to communicate with him. Mr. Williams stated, “[W]e tried every way that we could to contact him, unsuccessfully. We went to his office twelve, fifteen times. We went there during the day. We went there in the afternoon. We phoned and phoned and phoned and no answer.” Approximately ten months after he had retained Mr. Rossi, Mr. Williams went to the Martinsburg courthouse and discovered that Mr. Rossi had not filed a lawsuit on his behalf. Thereafter, Mr. Williams filed an ethics complaint against Mr. Rossi with the ODC. Mr. Williams also sent a letter to Mr. Rossi, firing him and requesting a return of all of the documents he had provided to Mr. Rossi, as well as a refund of the $2,000.00 retainer. The ODC sent a letter to Mr. Rossi on July 12, 2011, asking for a response to Mr. Williams’s complaint. Mr. Rossi did not respond to the ODC. The ODC sent a second letter to Mr. Rossi on August 10, 2011, again asking for a response to the complaint. Mr. Rossi replied, by letter dated August 31, 2011, and admitted that he had failed to communicate with Mr. Williams. Mr. Rossi’s letter further stated that he was experiencing a “deep depression” and that he had started therapy. Mr. Rossi’s letter also stated that he was seeking employment “where I would not have to deal with issues related to running a business and practicing law,” but had failed to obtain such employment. 3 Mr. Rossi subsequently refunded the $2,000.00 retainer to Mr. Williams. However, Mr. Rossi failed to return the client file to Mr. Williams. The ODC sent two letters to Mr. Rossi instructing him to return the client file to Mr. Williams.2 Mr. Williams hired another attorney who filed a lawsuit on his behalf and resolved his rental property issue within two months. Mr. Williams stated that Mr. Rossi’s failure to file the lawsuit resulted in him losing approximately $7,000.00 in rental income. The Board determined that Mr. Rossi failed to diligently work on Mr. Williams’s case and failed to communicate with Mr. Williams about his case in violation of Rules 1.3,3 1.4(a) and 1.4(b)4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Further, the Board found that Mr. Rossi violated Rule 1.16(d)5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to return Mr. Williams’s client file. Finally, the Board found that Mr. Rossi 2 Mr. Rossi failed to respond to the ODC’s first letter instructing him to return the client file. 3 Rule 1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides that “[a] lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.” 4 Rules 1.4(a) and 1.4(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct are as follows: “(a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. (b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.” 5 Rule 1.16(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct states, in relevant part: “(d) Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as . . . surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled[.]” 4 violated Rule 8.1(b)6 by failing to follow a directive issued by the Investigative Panel of the Lawyer Disciplinary Board7 and by failing to respond to correspondence from the ODC.