Opinion ID: 2343697
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: complaint of barbara and michele clanton

Text: Petitioner asserts that Respondent failed in his duty to abide by the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, and 8.1 with regard to Respondent's handling of Ms. Clanton-Edmonds' case. Support for Petitioner's assertions was best summarized in Petitioner's Request for Admission of Facts and Genuineness of Documents, which was admitted into evidence as `Petitioner's Exhibit I.' The facts were verified by and further elaborated on by Ms. Clanton-Edmonds' testimony at the hearing on June 19, 2006. Ms. Clanton-Edmonds testified that in August 2001 she and her daughter in law, Michele Clanton, engaged Respondent to investigate and assert a claim against Lorien Frankford Nursing & Rehabilitation Center (hereinafter `Lorien.'). The claim was based upon that facility's alleged negligence in caring for Elwin Clanton over a period of several weeks immediately prior to his death on July 24, 2001. Elwin Clanton was Ms. Clanton-Edmonds' son and Michele Clanton's wife. Although Respondent agreed to represent Ms. Clanton-Edmonds and Michele Clanton, Respondent failed to file suit within the appropriate time required by the statute of limitations against Lorien or any other potentially liable entity or individual. Ms. Clanton-Edmonds' testimony showed that despite her repeated requests for information regarding the filing and status of her case, such information was not provided to her by Respondent. Respondent failed to notify Ms. Clanton-Edmonds or Michele Clanton when he vacated his law office in the spring of 2004. Furthermore, Ms. Clanton-Edmonds' testimony indicated that she was not notified that Respondent was terminating representation of her in the matter. Respondent's failure to timely notify Ms. Clanton-Edmonds that he was terminating his representation left her without sufficient time to secure employment of other counsel. Consequently, her case was barred by the statute of limitations. Also, Ms. Clanton-Edmonds stated that Respondent had not returned the original papers and photographs she gave to Respondent. As a result of Respondent's actions, Ms. Clanton-Edmonds and Michele Clanton filed a complaint against Respondent with Bar Counsel. Respondent received a letter on April 30, 2004 from Bar Counsel requesting a response to a complaint made by Ms. Clanton-Edmonds. Respondent failed to respond to the April 30, 2004 letter. Respondent received a letter on May 26, 2004 from Bar Counsel requesting a response to a complaint made by Ms. Clanton-Edmonds. Respondent failed to respond to the May 26, 2004 letter. Respondent received a letter on June 17, 2004 requesting a response to Ms. Clanton-Edmonds' complaint. Respondent failed to respond to the June 17, 2004 letter. Respondent received a letter on July 2, 2004 from Bar Counsel requesting a response to Ms. Clanton-Edmonds' complaint. Once again, Respondent failed to answer the letter. Respondent at no point submitted any response to Bar Counsel's request for information in regard to Ms. Clanton-Edmonds' complaint. This court finds that, as a matter of law, Respondent has violated [R]ules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, and 8.1 in failing to answer the repeated queries of Bar Counsel. Respondent violated rule 1.3 by not by not acting with diligence and promptness in either filing a claim for Ms. Clanton-Edmonds or informing her that he was not going to file a claim because he did not believe there was a substantial basis for doing so. Respondent violated [R]ule 1.4 by not keeping Ms. Clanton-Edmonds informed about the status, or lack thereof, of her case. Respondent has violated [R]ule 1.16 in failing to inform Ms. Clanton-Edmonds he was shutting the doors to his law practice and failing to return to Ms. Clanton-Edmonds her documents and photographs. Respondent has violated [R]ule 8.1 in failing to answer the repeated queries of Bar Counsel. Respondent offered mitigation about his mother's illness, his father's illness and ultimate death, his depression, his alcohol use to treat said depression, his treatment for alcohol abuse, and his relapse with alcohol. The Court did not find Respondent's mitigation to be persuasive.