Opinion ID: 854124
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cause 361Count Seven

Text: Colleen Cox was acquainted with Respondent since their attendance at the same high school in Muncie, Indiana. Ms. Cox and her former husband, Joel Harney, were divorced in the Delaware Superior Court 3 in 1988. Respondent entered an appearance on behalf of Ms. Cox on August 7, 1992. Beginning January, 1993, the parties had a series of post-dissolution disputes regarding support, custody, and visitation of their two children. By 1993, Ms. Cox was living in Idaho and the two children of the marriage visited their father in Indiana in the summers. In July 1993, Ms. Cox traveled to Indiana to pick up the children. Respondent petitioned the Delaware Superior Court 3 on her behalf for an order requiring Joel Harney to return the children to her. Respondent appeared in court again for Ms. Cox on August 18, 1993, in a contempt hearing against Joel Harney relating to his obligation to return the children. In 1994, Joel Harney petitioned for child custody and Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition on behalf of Ms. Cox. After a hearing on August 3, 1994 in which Respondent and Ms. Cox again appeared, the matter went through a change of judge and remained under advisement until late 1995. Meanwhile, Ms. Cox decided to allow the children to live in Indiana with their father. In late 1995, the attorney for Joel Harney sent Respondent a letter concerning settlement of issues relating to child custody, but did not receive a reply. Thereafter, Harney filed by counsel an emergency petition for change of custody. The trial judge declared an emergency, granted an immediate change of custody, and set the matter for hearing on March 4, 1996. Ms. Cox was in communication with Respondent about the pending custody matter but she was not advised by him that a hearing was set for March. Telephone records indicate she telephoned Respondent's law office on February 26, March 4, and March 5, 1996. On March 4, 1996, Respondent falsely advised Harney's attorney that he had not heard from Ms. Cox. He also stated he planned to withdraw from the case. That same date, Harney's attorney appeared in court for the hearing and Respondent did not appear. The trial judge continued the case to May 15, 1996, because he ascertained that Ms. Cox had not been served in Idaho. The judge was told either by Harney's attorney or by court staff that Respondent planned to withdraw. Ms. Cox received notice from Joel Harney of the May 15, 1996 hearing. Ms. Cox then contacted Respondent and discussed the child custody petition with him. She stated she would not fight for custody but that she did want visitation. She had an interest in the outcome and wanted her children to know she was interested. Respondent told her he would be present at the hearing on the matter. He advised that perhaps she would obtain the same visitation schedule then enjoyed by her former husband, and that she did not need to travel to Indiana for a hearing on these issues. On the day before the scheduled hearing, Respondent's secretary telephoned the office of Harney's attorney and stated that they had not heard from Ms. Cox and that Respondent again planned to withdraw from the case. On May 15, 1996, Joel Harney appeared with his attorney before the trial court at the scheduled hearing but Respondent did not appear on behalf of Ms. Cox. The judge determined that Ms. Cox had notice of the hearing, so the hearing proceeded on its merits. The trial court granted Joel Harney's petition for custody, set a support obligation against Ms. Cox, and granted her supervised visitation in Indiana. On that same day, Respondent filed a motion to withdraw his appearance in the case. In the motion, Respondent stated that he had not received any communication from [Ms. Cox] for over three months. Assuming the representation to be true, the trial court granted the motion to withdraw. Respondent did not advise Ms. Cox that he planned to withdraw, nor that he did in fact withdraw, nor what the outcome of the May hearing had been. Joel Harney advised his attorney on May 29, 1996, that Ms. Cox had telephoned her children and that she did not know about the custody order. Ms. Cox obtained some information from her parents about the outcome of the May hearing, including that she had not had representation. Subsequently, Ms. Cox inquired of Respondent whether he had withdrawn from her case. Respondent lied, telling her he had not withdrawn. Respondent and Ms. Cox's father, Richard Courtney, first met when Ms. Cox and Respondent were in high school together. They were also acquainted through community and church activities. Courtney called Respondent and asked him why he had resigned and left [Ms. Cox] unprotected at that hearing. Respondent again lied, replying that he had not withdrawn and that he would check into it and call back, but he never did so. Respondent was in contact with his client but falsely told opposing counsel and the tribunal that he had not heard from her. His client expected him to represent her interests at the May, 1996 hearing and he neglected those interests and did not appear on her behalf. Respondent did not tell his client he would not appear, did not tell her he planned to withdraw, and subsequently falsely told her and her father that he had not withdrawn.
The facts found with regard to Count Seven in Cause Number 18S00-9706-JD-361 demonstrate that Respondent violated Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1), which generally prohibits a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal; Rule 4.1, which generally prohibits a lawyer from making a false statement of material fact or law to a third person in the course of representing a client; and Rule 8.4(c), which generally provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. Respondent also violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 1.1, which generally requires lawyers to provide competent representation to clients; Rule 1.3, which generally requires lawyers to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; Rule 1.4, which generally requires lawyers to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter, to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, and to explain a matter to the extent necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; Rule 1.16(d), which generally requires lawyers, upon termination of representation, to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interest, such as giving reasonable notice to the client and allowing time for employment of other counsel; and Rule 8.4(d), which generally provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.