Opinion ID: 1991919
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: the patterson matter

Text: Grievant, Joseph Patterson, was the owner-operator of a small tractor-trailer. In September 1981, grievant retained respondent to represent him in a lawsuit filed against him as a result of an accident involving his tractor-trailer and to determine whether he was covered by insurance. At that time, respondent advised him to turn the suit over to grievant's insurance company. Said company, however, subsequently disclaimed coverage for alleged failure to pay the premiums. [9] Accordingly, respondent continued as grievant's counsel in the litigation. For the next four years, there was almost no communication between respondent and grievant about the status of the matter, in spite of the fact that grievant and/or his wife attempted to contact respondent weekly and, on occasion, twice a week. Respondent was either not available or would tell grievant not to bother him because his time was valuable. On those few occasions when he was able to reach respondent, grievant was invariably told that his case had to go to court. Sometime in 1984, a judgment in the approximate amount of $500.00 was entered against grievant. [10] Respondent did not notify grievant of any court appearances or the outcome thereof. Accordingly, grievant had no knowledge of the judgment against him. It was not until 1985, when grievant received notice that his driver's license had been suspended in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, that he became aware that judgment had been entered against him in the litigation. Immediately after the receipt of the above notice, grievant telephoned respondent. Respondent did not offer to assist grievant in restoring his license. Pursuant to grievant's testimony, respondent's reply was that it was (his) problem to straighten the mess out because (you are) guilty in court (sic). Grievant retained new counsel, who negotiated an agreement with plaintiffs' attorney for the satisfaction of the judgment through monthly payments by grievant. New counsel was then able to have grievant's driving privileges restored in both states. In addition to the amount of the judgment and counsel fees, grievant sustained damages in the amount of $400.00 for transportation costs to and from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and of approximately $1,500.00 in wages. After receiving notice that his license had been suspended, grievant also terminated respondent's representation in another matter involving a separate vehicle accident. Despite grievant's request for the return of his files, respondent refused to do so until he received payment for attorney's fees. Ultimately respondent released grievant's files. At the conclusion of a hearing held on July 28, 1986 and November 3, 1986, the district ethics committee found that respondent had knowingly failed to pursue grievant's request to determine whether grievant was covered by insurance; had failed to keep grievant informed of the status of the case; had failed to inform grievant of the summary judgment and its ramifications, thus causing grievant's loss of his driver's license and wages; had failed to assist grievant in his efforts to restore his license; had neglected pursuing the matter, thereby causing financial injury to grievant; had been grossly negligent in handling the matter; and had failed to turn over grievant's files upon request. The district ethics committee concluded that respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(1), (2), (3) and DR 2-110(A)(2). Accordingly, the committee recommended that respondent be publicly reprimanded.