Opinion ID: 1382112
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Judge Susan Weber Wright Complaint

Text: The second complaint was that of Federal District Judge Susan Weber Wright, who testified she was assigned Anthony J. Vance v. St. Vincent Infirmary Medical Center, in which Price represented Mr. Vance. St. Vincent filed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production, but Price did respond. The following is a chronology of events: April 17, 2002, Judge Wright granted a motion to compel and directed Price to respond, but Price filed no response; May 9, 2002, St. Vincent filed a motion to dismiss; May 31, 2002, St. Vincent filed a motion for summary judgment; June 5, 2002, Judge Wright denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice, giving Price until June 14, 2002, to respond to the motion to dismiss, and to timely respond to a motion for summary judgment; June 17, 2002, Price told Judge Wright's secretary he had been ill and would file that day asking for more time to respond; July 1, 2002, Judge Wright's law clerk telephoned Price, who assured her he would file something by July 2, 2002; July 8, 2002, Judge Wright's law clerk called and left a message for Price; July 9, 2002, Price returned the phone call, and again, promised to file something; July 16, 2002, A show cause order was entered, giving Price ten (10) days to explain why he should not be removed as counsel; July 19, 2002, Price signed for the certified mail containing the show cause order. July 31, 2002, Judge Wright removed Price from the case and directed him to immediately provide Vance with a copy of the order, continued the trial to an unstated date, and stayed any action on the summary judgment motion until Vance obtained another attorney; September 24, 2002, Judge Wright responded to an undated letter from Vance, indicating Price had telephoned him on September 19, 2002, informing him of the order; December, 2002, Judge Wright received a letter from Vance requesting his case be dismissed because he did not have the money to hire another attorney; and, December 19, 2002, Judge Wright entered a voluntary dismissal without prejudice. Based on Judge Susan Weber Wright's complaint, Price was alleged to have violated Model Rules 1.1, 1.16(d), 3.2, 3.3(a), 3.4(c), 5.5(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d). Judge Lessenberry found that Price violated Model Rule 1.1: A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. Price argues that the record is replete with evidence that respondent had a general intention to comply with Judge Wright's orders but between bouts with hypertension and competing disciplinary activity, respondent simply dropped the ball in the Vance case. Price did not provide competent representation to Vance by repeatedly failing to file responsive pleadings. In Judge Wright's order of July 31, 2002, Price was removed as attorney and was directed to provide his client with a copy of the order by September 16, 2002, so that Vance would know of the matters pending, obtain other representation, or proceed pro se. Vance wrote Judge Wright a letter stating that Price had telephoned him on September 19, 2002, three days later than Judge Wright's July 31 order directed Price to do. Price clearly violated Rule 1.16(d), Declining or terminating representation, which states: (d) Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted by other law. Further, Price did not make reasonable efforts to expedite the Vance case, nor did he respond to any orders or pleadings. Model Rule 3.2, Expediting litigation, states: A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client. Judge Lessenberry found that Price violated Model Rule 3.3(a)(1), Candor toward the tribunal, which provides: (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal. Price talked with a secretary in chambers and with Judge Wright's law clerk by telephone, giving repeated excuses for delay and promising that pleadings would be forthcoming, but he failed to file any. Price knowingly made false statements to Judge Wright's staff in June and July about filing pleadings. The judge found that Price violated Model Rule 3.4(c), Fairness to opposing party and counsel, that a lawyer shall not: (c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists. Price contends that the record shows his diminished capacity to comply because of illness and personal hardships, but does not deny he failed to respond to discovery, to an order granting a motion to dismiss, to a summary judgment motion, and to a show cause order from the court. Price's claims of illness and personal hardship are not justification for his repeated failings to obey Judge Wright's order. Model Rule 5.5(a), Unauthorized practice of law, states: A lawyer shall not: (a) practice law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction. Denise Parks, by an affidavit states that Price failed to pay his 2002 law license fee by the March 1 deadline. Price's law license went into administrative suspension status and remained there until May 13, 2002, when he paid his 2002 license fee. During this time Price practiced law representing Mr. Vance. Judge Lessenberry found that Price violated Model Rule 8.4(c) and (d), Misconduct, which provides a lawyer shall not: (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. Judge Lessenberry did not err in finding Price's conduct in failing to file pleadings as deceitful or prejudicial to the administration of justice.