Opinion ID: 2056733
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: debra mack/richard fisher

Text: In March of 2007, Debra Mack (Mack) retained respondent to represent her in Superior Court on her pending tort action against the City of Newport wherein Mack was claiming injuries due to a slip and fall. At the time that he was retained there were outstanding discovery requests propounded by the defendant to Mack. On September 20, 2007, the defense counsel filed a motion to compel Mack to provide documents sought in the discovery requests. The respondent did not notify Mack that he had received the motion to compel, nor did he file an objection or submit a response. The motion was granted by the Superior Court. Defense counsel made further requests to respondent to provide the information, but with no success. Defense counsel subsequently filed a motion for entry of final judgment against Mack for failure to comply with the discovery order. Again respondent did not file an objection, provide the requested documents, or appear at the hearing on June 2, 2008. On June 19, 2008, the court entered a final judgment in favor of the defendant. The respondent did not inform Mack that her case had been dismissed. Attorney Richard Fisher, who represented Mack on unrelated matters, was present in court when the motion for entry of final judgment was heard and granted. He notified Mack that her case had been dismissed. Mack contacted the respondent, who advised her that he would take the appropriate steps to reinstate the civil action. When he did not do so, Mack retained Attorney Fisher to take over the case. Mack sent respondent a letter requesting that he forward her file to Fisher. Instead of sending the file, respondent filed a civil action naming both Mack and Fisher as defendants, claiming breach of contract and intentional interference with a contractual relationship. The respondent did not have Mack or Fisher served with the summons and complaint, and on May 8, 2009, he voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit. The respondent's conduct as set forth above was in violation of Article V, Rules 1.1 [10] , 1.3, 1.4(b) [11] , 3.1 [12] , and 8.4(d) [13] of the Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct.