Opinion ID: 2312151
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: COUNT III (Haupt/Davis)

Text: Respondent agreed to represent Ms. Bernice Davis, who had been charged with a felony in Virginia, for a fee of $350-$400. At the initial visit, Ms. Davis and her daughter asked respondent's secretary whether she needed a Virginia lawyer. Respondent's secretary replied that there would be no problem. They did not discuss with respondent whether a Virginia lawyer would be necessary. Ms. Davis was shocked upon hearing in the courtroom in Virginia that another lawyer would be necessary. The Virginia lawyer, who had a loose reciprocal work arrangement with respondent, handled the case to Ms. Davis' satisfaction. She charged Ms. Davis an additional fee. The Hearing Committee concluded that respondent had not violated any of the disciplinary rules that Bar Counsel had charged in the petition. [1] There was no neglect in that he had made arrangements to obtain local counsel and had thereafter consulted by telephone with local counsel on the progress of the case. Although he was remiss in his effort to keep Ms. Davis apprised of the manner in which her case would be handled, respondent did provide her with competent legal assistance. The committee found that respondent's conduct came very close to the edge of involving deceit and misrepresentation, but in the totality, did not meet a finding of affirmative deceit or misrepresentation.