Court Opinion

ID: 9561898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:18:20.841091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:13.831667
License: Public Domain

Manoukian, J.,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent and explicate my difficulty with the Court’s opinion.
In the instant case, the Board of Bar Governors concluded: that as a result of his failure to prosecute an appeal to this Court on behalf of his client and thereby perform the services for which he was retained, petitioner has violated Rule 197 of this Court and Rule 203 adopting, inter alia, Canon 7 and Disciplinary Rule 7-101A(2) of the American Bar Association Code of Professional Responsibility and that the habitual disregard by petitioner for the interests of his client together with his willful failure to perform legal services for which he was retained constituted (1) a breach of the good faith and fiduciary duty owed by an attorney to his client, (2) unethical conduct, and warrants disciplinary action in the form of suspension from the practice of law. Supreme Court Rule 163.
*109Here, petitioner failed to file necessary appellate documents for his client, indirectly misled him through relatives who were interested in the outcome of the proceedings as to the status of his case, failed to timely return a retainer fee, and generally avoided all communication with his client. The failure to prosecute an appeal, when such desire is made known to counsel, can itself constitute a gross dereliction in duty. Compare, Downs v. Warden, 93 Nev. 475, 568 P.2d 575 (1977).
Although the instant failure to perform promised legal services may not constitute the “pervasive course of conduct by the attorney” that warranted the severe discipline imposed in Grove v. State Bar of California, 427 P.2d 164 (Cal. 1967), and its progeny, and while some of petitioner’s omissions standing alone might be described as merely negligent, his persistence in refusing to perform sevices for which he was engaged and for which he accepted fees, and his representations to his client that petitioner was diligently working on the case can only be described as deliberate and willful.
Petitioner’s behavior, indeed, constitutes serious misconduct. Failure to communicate with a client and inattention to his needs may alone constitute appropriate grounds for discipline. Spindell v. State Bar, 530 P.2d 168 (Cal. 1975); Taylor v. State Bar, 521 P.2d 470 (Cal. 1974). The same may be said of the acceptance of compensation for legal sevices which are never forthcoming. Grove, supra; Bruns v. State Bar of California, 117 P.2d 327 (Cal. 1941); compare, In re Kaufman, 93 Nev. 452, 567 P.2d 957 (1977).
There are no settled standards as to the fitting sanction, and each case must be decided on its own facts. Bradpiece v. State Bar of California, 518 P.2d 337 (Cal. 1974). We should, however, give great deference to the recommendations of the Board of Bar Governors. See, Silver v. State Bar, 528 P.2d 1157 (Cal. 1974).
Our primary concern must be the fulfillment of established professional standards, and in matters such as the instant case where culpability exists in the absence of mitigating circumstances, the recommended penalties should be adopted by this Court.
On this record, I would approve the Board of Bar Governors’ recommendation.