Opinion ID: 1304366
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Laur Matter

Text: In 1977 Richard Laur employed petitioner to represent him as plaintiff in an automobile accident case. It is not disputed that petitioner filed the action but failed to serve it upon any defendant or do anything else of significance on Laur's behalf. Laur testified he repeatedly attempted to contact petitioner about the status of the case but only met with petitioner once; he stated petitioner rarely returned his phone calls and often claimed he was too busy to give the matter any attention. Laur transferred the matter to another attorney but petitioner never delivered the litigation file; petitioner later claimed he had misplaced the file. The suit was ultimately dismissed for failure to serve the summons and complaint within three years. Laur filed a malpractice action against petitioner and obtained a judgment for $3,000 which has never been paid. Petitioner admitted negligence in the Laur matter but claimed that his failure in the representation was not wilful. The hearing panel disagreed and found petitioner had violated former rule 6-101 [9] by wilfully failing to use reasonable diligence on behalf of his client. The review department adopted all of the hearing panel's findings as its own.