Opinion ID: 2287961
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Respondent's handling of an automobile accident personal injury and property damage claim for Berney.

Text: The accident, a two car collision, happened on January 20, 1965. The next day Berney retained respondent to handle the case. Respondent said he was so busy with other matters that he had to turn the claim over to another attorney, whose name he did not remember, and he did not realize suit had not been started until Berney's new lawyer asked for the file. The only documentary evidence of a communication with the insurance carrier is a copy of a letter written by respondent to the carrier after the statute of limitations had run on the personal injury claim. Berney said that in the meantime respondent led him to believe that a settlement was being negotiated. Finally Berney retained another lawyer to handle the matter, suit was filed against the driver of the other vehicle and a judgment recovered for property damage. Berney's personal injury claim was dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations. Berney then instituted a malpractice suit against respondent. Respondent answered but did not defend at trial and ultimately Berney recovered a judgment against respondent for $2,000 and costs which remains unpaid. Respondent does not seriously question the findings set forth in the presentment as to this matter. His inattention to his professional obligation in his handling of Berney's claim, with resultant damage to the client, is beyond question. See DR 7-101(A) (1) (2) (3). The third charge set forth in the presentment having been sustained, we consider appropriate discipline. Respondent's dereliction, while substantial, does not involve moral turpitude. He has been an attorney for more than 35 years and, according to the record, enjoys a good reputation at the bar and in the community. Considering all circumstances, we conclude that justice will be served, and the public interest protected, by the imposition of a reprimand. Respondent is hereby reprimanded for his conduct. For reprimand  Chief Justice WEINTRAUB, Justices JACOBS, PROCTOR, HALL, MOUNTAIN and SULLIVAN and Judge CONFORD  7. Opposed  None.