Opinion ID: 1587664
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Count IThe Bourque Matter

Text: In February 2003, Darrel and Carolyn Bourque hired respondent to handle the succession of Darrel's father. [2] Shortly thereafter, the Bourques hired respondent to handle the succession of Darrel's stepmother. [3] Darrel was executor of both estates. Respondent repeatedly failed to communicate with Darrel. He also failed to provide the opposing counsel with discovery responses and failed to arrange for real estate appraisals. Consequently, the real estate was sold below market value, and Darrel was sued on a lesion claim. Respondent informed the Bourques he would represent them in the lesion claim but never performed any work on the matter. Ultimately, the Bourques had to hire another attorney to represent Darrel. In July 2007, Carolyn filed a disciplinary complaint against respondent, who failed to respond to the complaint in writing. Accordingly, the ODC issued a subpoena to obtain his sworn statement. During the December 2007 sworn statement, respondent admitted he did not diligently handle the successions. He did, however, obtain a judgment of possession in the first succession. He also admitted he failed to communicate with Darrel. The ODC requested that respondent provide it with written documentation regarding the status of the second succession. Respondent failed to provide the documentation, despite numerous requests to do so. The ODC alleged respondent's conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4(a) (failure to communicate with a client), and 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation).