Opinion ID: 1969239
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Antonio Gladden Case

Text: The matter was heard by Hearing Committee No. 3 on March 8, 1995. Its report was issued on September 10, 1996. Rule 1.5(b): Respondent argued that, because he was ignorant of the rule requiring a written statement of the basis or rate of the fee to be charged, his failure to provide such a statement should be excused on the ground of no harm-no foul. However, the Committee disagreed, and found that a violation of Rule 1.5(b) was established by clear and convincing evidence. Rule 1.1(b): The Committee concluded that Bar Counsel established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated this rule which requires a lawyer to serve a client with skill and care commensurate with that generally afforded to clients by other lawyers in similar matters. Rule 1.1(a): The Committee determined that Bar Counsel made no showing that Respondent lacked the requisite legal knowledge and skill to represent Gladden in his appeal, and, accordingly, found that this rule had not been violated. Rules 1.3(a), 1.3(b)(1), 8.4(d), and 1.16(d): The Committee refused to make findings as to whether these rules were violated because, in its view, the basis for each of those charges was essentially duplicative of the basis for the charge of violating Rule 1.1(b),