Opinion ID: 1991440
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the leighton matter

Text: On July 11, 1977, respondent was retained by Harry Leighton, principal owner of a real estate brokerage firm known as the Academy Agency, to clear title to a piece of property the agency desired to sell. On that date, Mr. Leighton sent respondent a $500.00 retainer and asked him to resolve this situation as quickly as possible. No written fee agreement was executed. Over the next four years, Mr. Leighton made numerous telephone calls to respondent about the status of the matter. He also sent respondent nine separate letters, the majority of which demanded status reports and copies of all documents or letters pertaining to the matter. Respondent rarely returned the telephone calls and sent but three reply letters. Respondent testified that there were telephone conversations in between, and after a while I didn't read his letters, they were just a nuisance. [1T97-17 to 20]. [1] For four years respondent led Mr. Leighton to believe a bill to quiet title had been filed and was progressing satisfactorily. On at least two occasions, he provided Mr. Leighton with anticipated dates of resolution, only to have these dates pass without any further communication. In fact, no bill to quiet title had been or was ever filed. Moreover, respondent assured Mr. Leighton that Academy Agency was the sole owner of the property in question when, in fact, there was at least one other party with a legal claim to the property. Mr. Leighton was ultimately constrained to enter into a settlement agreement conceding a majority interest in the parcel to that individual. On May 8, 1981, Mr. Leighton sent respondent a final letter demanding a refund of the $500.00 retainer and a complete copy of the file respondent had opened. Mr. Leighton also advised respondent that he intended to file an ethics complaint and civil suit against him. Mr. Leighton never received a reply or refund of the retainer.