Opinion ID: 2036720
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ethics violations.

Text: The Commission concluded that Sherman's conduct in connection with Vickie's case violated several provisions of the Code. Specifically, the Commission determined that due to his neglect in handling Vickie's case, and through his admissions, Sherman violated disciplinary rules concerning neglect of a client's legal matter, DR 6-101(A)(3), and rules concerning failure to carry out a contract of employment, DR 7-101(A)(2). The Commission also found that due to his failure to file a written response with the Ethics Board in a timely manner, Sherman violated disciplinary rules which prohibit an attorney from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, DR 1-102(A)(5), and that adversely reflects on the fitness to practice law, DR 1-102(A)(6). We believe the record shows that the source of the client's complaint in this case is the breakdown in communication between the attorney and the client. In particular, Vickie testified at the hearing before the Grievance Commission that Sherman canceled several appointments. Sherman, on the other hand, testified before the Commission that he explained Vickie's options to her during the meeting in August 1997, and that Vickie was supposed to get back to him about what action she wanted to take in the case. He also stated that following the meeting, he drafted a petition for legal separation, but that Vickie phoned him in December 1997, telling him that she did not want to take any action in the case at that time of the year. Sherman told her she would need to take some action and to contact him after she had determined whether her fifteen-year-old daughter would be living with her. Sherman also stated that Vickie rescheduled or canceled certain appointments. Sherman further explained that his caseload significantly increased in the spring of 1998 after the local public defender's office closed and that he also ran for county attorney at that time. Sherman admitted, however, in his response to requests for admissions, and during the hearing before the Grievance Commission, that due to his increased caseload, he took no action concerning Vickie's case from April to June 1998. Additionally, Sherman commented that the practice of law has become very stressful for him and that he plans to leave it. The evidence in the record, along with Sherman's admissions, shows that a convincing preponderance of the evidence supports the Commission's findings, that in failing to respond to the Ethics Board's inquiry, Sherman violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (A lawyer shall not ... [e]ngage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.), and DR 1-102(A)(6) (A lawyer shall not ... [e]ngage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the fitness to practice law.). Additionally, the record supports the findings that Sherman, in his handling of Vickie's case, violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (A lawyer shall not... [n]eglect a client's legal matter.), and DR 7-101(A)(2) (A lawyer shall not intentionally... [f]ail to carry out a contract of employment....).