Opinion ID: 2603915
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The McGrath Matter.

Text: McGrath was an electrical contractor. He did electrical work on properties owned by a Mrs. Georgianna Burton in 1972 and Whitteborg Associates in 1974. The accounts, being unpaid and delinquent, were turned over to the respondent for collection. The respondent timely filed mechanic's lien statements against each property. In connection with the claim against Burton, the respondent filed an action in the district court of Clear Creek County and obtained a default judgment for the amount of the claim. No attempt was made to collect the judgment. The Burton matter was handled under a contingent fee contract. No statement for services was ever submitted to McGrath. In connection with the Whitteborg claim of $4,800, the respondent, after filing the lien statement, failed to take further action. The property was sold after the lien expired. A dispute existed between McGrath and the respondent as to how this matter was to have been handled. The respondent contends that he refused to proceed on a contingent fee basis, that he requested McGrath to pay a retainer before filing a foreclosure action. Respondent allegedly wrote to McGrath advising him that the Whitteborg lien would expire within approximately two months from the date of the advisement. McGrath claims he did not receive such a letter. In any event, a copy of the alleged letter furnished by the respondent does not request a retainer or advancement of costs, nor does it advise the client of the consequences of the expiration of the lien or what action should be taken to protect McGrath's interest. McGrath testified that the respondent made no demand upon him to advance funds as a condition to protecting his interest in the Whitteborg property. The Committee concluded that the respondent knew of McGrath's desire to collect the Whitteborg debt and had a responsibility to take steps to protect his client's interest in the mechanic's lien, or to advise his client unequivocally of the necessity for a retainer or other affirmative action by the client directing him to commence the foreclosure action. The Committee concluded also that McGrath would have paid a retainer had he been so requested. Finally, the Committee concluded that the respondent misled his client by assuring him that everything was being taken care of when, in fact, no action had been commenced and the statute of limitations had run, such conduct being in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) and DR 7-102(A)(5). An attorney who accepts an account for collection is obligated to use his best efforts to pursue that objective to the best result obtainable. DR 6-101(A)(3) provides: (A) A lawyer shall not: . . . . . (3) Neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. Pertinent to this proposition is DR 7-101, which mandates that a lawyer represent a client zealously. Portions of the rule which are particularly relevant to the McGrath situation provide that: (A) A lawyer shall not intentionally: (1) Fail to seek the lawful objectives of his client through reasonably available means permitted by law and the Disciplinary Rules . . .. (2) Fail to carry out a contract of employment entered into with a client for professional services, but he may withdraw as permitted under DR 2-110, DR 5-102, and DR 5-105.