Opinion ID: 2351414
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Complaint of Janet G. Swanson et al.

Text: In May of 1971 these complainants engaged respondent to defend a $5,000 civil action. An agreement to settle the action for $300 was reached, and on September 3, 1971, the complainants gave $400 to respondent. Three Hundred Dollars was to be paid to the claimants' counsel to effectuate the settlement, and the remaining $100 was to be retained by respondent as his fee. As of February 25, 1972, the date of the complaint committee's hearing on this complaint, the $300 had not been paid. Indeed, the sum was not paid until March of 1972. Moreover, during the more than five months which intervened between respondent's receipt of the $400 and the hearing before the committee, respondent had not communicated with complainants despite their repeated attempts to contact him. Neither had he responded to their letter of October 8, 1971, sent by certified mail, in which they observed that since September 6, 1971 they had attempted almost daily, but without success, to reach him by telephone in order to ascertain when they would receive the release which they understood would be forthcoming upon payment of the agreed settlement. The respondent defended on two grounds. First, he offered a letter dated March 16, 1972 in which the complainants advised the committee that they were satisfied with their dealings with and had no grievances against respondent, and that they were withdrawing their complaint and requesting that no disciplinary action be taken against him. On the basis of that letter he moved to dismiss the complaint. That motion was summarily rejected. Next, he referred to his own personal domestic matter as an excuse for his dilatory conduct. In rejecting that excuse the committee observed that respondent's problems had not spanned the extent of his dereliction, and it premised its recommendation for appropriate disciplinary action upon findings that respondent's tardiness in fulfilling his professional obligations was inefficient and irresponsible, and of such a nature as to raise a    question of whether [r]espondent had in his keeping and always available the funds entrusted to him or whether there was a callous disregard of his professional duties amounting to a breach of trust.