Opinion ID: 1199731
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Counts I and II (Wilmer Daniels)

Text: Count I related to Wolfe's inadequate representation of Daniels. Count II dealt with Wolfe's failure to timely respond to the OBA's notices. Wolfe represented Daniels in a federal court action against Daniels's former employer, Sears, Roebuck & Co., for employment discrimination. Sears filed a motion for summary judgment to which Wolfe did not respond. Forty-three days after Sears filed its motion, October 13, 1988, the federal court granted Sears's motion based on Daniels's failure to file anything to controvert the truthfulness of the facts Sears alleged. On October 26, 1988, the federal court entered judgment. On November 7, 1988, twelve days after the federal court entered judgment, Wolfe filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment. Wolfe's motion was based on his claim that when the court ruled on Sears's motion Plaintiff['s] response and brief were nearly completed ... The federal court denied the motion to alter or amend. On February 16, 1989 Wolfe filed for Daniels a notice of Daniels's intention to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. On May 22, 1989, the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of prosecution. The OBA gave notice to Wolfe of Daniels's grievance on August 7, 1991. Wolfe obtained an extension of time to file his response to September 9, 1991, but filed nothing on that date. Wolfe failed to respond to the OBA's second written request dated September 18, 1991. Wolfe finally filed a response to Daniels's grievance on October 14, 1991, after the Professional Responsibility Commission had served Wolfe with a deposition subpoena. Wolfe admitted all the factual allegations but denied his failure to timely file a response to Sears's motion for summary judgment violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.