Opinion ID: 1926090
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: client j.k.counts 22-24

Text: [10] ¶ 59. The OLR complaint alleged that in June 2001 Cavendish-Sosinski was appointed by the state public defender to represent J.K. in two postconviction appeal matters. Later J.K. complained to the SPD office that Cavendish-Sosinski had failed to respond to his repeated inquiries regarding the status of his cases and that she had had no contact with him for almost a year. J.K. also contacted the court of appeals reporting his concerns about Cavendish-Sosinski's representation. ¶ 60. On May 9, 2002, and again on June 13, 2002, the SPD's office wrote to Cavendish-Sosinski about her lack of contact with J.K. Cavendish-Sosinski failed to respond to either letter. She also failed to respond to telephone calls from the SPD's office on August 6, 2002, and September 5, 2002. ¶ 61. The court of appeals subsequently ordered the SPD to file a report with the court addressing J.K.'s eligibility for appointment of substitute counsel in his two cases. In its response, the SPD's office advised the court that it believed J.K. was entitled to new postconviction counsel and that the SPD would appoint new counsel for him. In addition, the SPD asked the court to order Cavendish-Sosinski to immediately forward copies of J.K.'s court records and transcript to the SPD's appellate division so that that material could then be provided to his new counsel. ¶ 62. On September 9, 2002, and again on September 10, 2002, the court of appeals issued orders granting the SPD's request and ordering Cavendish-Sosinski to file affidavits of service with the court no later than September 20, 2002, proving that she had forwarded the requested items in both of J.K.'s cases. In these orders, the court of appeals warned that if she failed to provide the requested items, sanctions would be imposed. Cavendish-Sosinski mailed the requested items to the SPD on October 18, 2002. ¶ 63. After the SPD's office forwarded to the OLR a copy of the SPD's report filed in the court of appeals regarding Cavendish-Sosinski, the OLR commenced an informal inquiry into the matter and requested that Cavendish-Sosinski provide a written response on or before October 16, 2002. She did not respond. ¶ 64. Thereafter, by certified letter on October 18, 2002, the OLR again requested that Cavendish-Sosinski provide information regarding her conduct in the J.K. matter. That certified letter was signed for by Cavendish-Sosinski's secretary on October 21, 2002, but Cavendish-Sosinski did not respond to that request. ¶ 65. On November 22, 2002, Cavendish-Sosinski was personally served with the OLR's third request for a response in the J.K. matter. On November 29, 2002, Cavendish-Sosinski contacted OLR by fax acknowledging that she had received the requests and she asked for an extension of time to respond. The OLR granted her an extension until December 13, 2002. ¶ 66. On that date, Cavendish-Sosinski faxed her formal response to the OLR's investigation of the J.K. matter. In that response, Cavendish-Sosinski asserted that when she accepted the appointment to represent J.K., she was overworked and exhausted and suffering from clinical depression. She also acknowledged that she should not have accepted new clients during that period; she claimed that during the time of her appointment in the J.K. matter, she had relied too heavily on a new assistant to log in and file documents as they were received in the mail. According to Cavendish-Sosinski's response, had she been operating at her normal mental capacity during that time, she would have been on top of the situation and would have ensured that all time limits were recorded and met; however, because she was so overextended with other cases and scheduled court hearings, she said she had not paid proper attention to caseslike J.K.'sthat she thought did not require immediate attention. ¶ 67. Based on this course of conduct, the referee concluded that the respondent had committed the violations as alleged in Counts 22, 23, and 24 of the OLR's complaint. Specifically, the referee concluded that Cavendish-Sosinski had failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3; also, she had failed to promptly respond to reasonable requests for information and to keep her client informed about the status of a matter, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a); and finally she had failed to cooperate with an OLR investigation, in violation of SCR 22.03(2).