Opinion ID: 1919210
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: julie's grievance

Text: The formal charges in case No. S-07-517 allege that Peters failed to act diligently and competently in obtaining an order to allow Kerry's TSP account to be liquidated and distributed to Julie as agreed to by the parties. It was not until almost 2 years after the property settlement agreement was prepared that an order was signed by the district court directing distribution of the TSP account as provided in a stipulation filed on July 25, 2006. Peters argues that the key determination related to disbursement of the TSP account is whether Julie ever asked him to resolve the incomplete transfer of the funds. [3] He asserts that there is no physical evidence to support her claim, and he attacks Julie's credibility. Peters argues that Kerry was never Peters' client and that Kerry also is not credible. Clear and convincing evidence is that amount of evidence which produces in the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction about the existence of a fact to be proved. [4] Clear and convincing evidence means more than a preponderance but less than evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. [5] The record supports the referee's findings by clear and convincing evidence that Peters violated DR 6-101 and § 3-501.3 by failing to act competently and with reasonable diligence and promptness in responding to Julie's questions about the second payment from the TSP account. The referee found that Peters' benign neglect did not show an intent to prejudice or damage his client. While this court conducts a de novo review and reaches a conclusion independent of the referee's findings, we give weight to the fact that the referee heard and observed the witnesses. Peters' core defense is that the complainants are not credible. The record supports a finding by clear and convincing evidence that Peters did not diligently and promptly investigate the delay in the second payment, which was not made until 22 months after the entry of the decree.