Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Rossi

• Decision Date: 05 February 2015
• Docket Number: 13–1148.,Nos. 13–0508,s. 13–0508
• Citation: 234 W.Va. 675,769 S.E.2d 464
• Parties: LAWYER DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Petitioner v. Ronald S. ROSSI, A Member of the West Virginia State Bar, Respondent.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

234 W.Va. 675

769 S.E.2d 464

LAWYER DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Petitioner

v.Ronald S. ROSSI, A Member of the West Virginia State Bar, Respondent.

Nos. 13–0508

13–1148.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted Jan. 13, 2015.

Decided Feb. 5, 2015.

Jessica H. Donahue Rhodes, Esq., Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel, Charleston, WV, Counsel for the Petitioner.

Ronald S. Rossi, Esq., Martinsburg, WV, Pro Se.

Opinion

Justice KETCHUM :

This is a consolidated lawyer disciplinary proceeding brought against Ronald S. Rossi by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“the ODC”). The ODC instituted two separate disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Rossi after six of his former clients filed ethics complaints against him. A Hearing Panel Subcommittee of the Lawyer Disciplinary Board (“Board”) determined that Mr. Rossi committed multiple violations of the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, including (1) failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his clients, (2) failing to communicate with his clients, (3) failing to return client files in a timely fashion, (4) repeatedly failing to respond to the ODC's requests for information, (5) failing to contact the Lawyer Assistance Program after being directed to do so, (6) engaging in conduct that was deceitful, and (7) engaging in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice. The Board recommended that Mr. Rossi be given two one-year suspensions from the practice of law and recommended that the two one-year suspensions run concurrent to each other. In effect, the Board recommends that Mr. Rossi be suspended from the practice of law for one year.

Upon review, this Court finds that clear and convincing evidence exists to support the Board's finding that Mr. Rossi committed multiple violations of the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct. However, we disagree with the Board's recommendation that an effective one-year suspension is sufficient discipline for the substantial misconduct involved in this case. We find, instead, that Mr. Rossi's misconduct warrants a three-year suspension from the practice of law. We adopt the Board's remaining recommended sanctions in full and impose two additional sanctions.

I.FACTUAL BACKGROUND & CHARGED VIOLATIONS

Mr. Rossi is a lawyer practicing in Martinsburg, West Virginia. He was admitted to the West Virginia State Bar in October 1997. As such, Mr. Rossi is subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of this Court. Mr. Rossi faces two separate disciplinary cases. The first case, no. 13–0508, was filed on May 20, 2013. The second case, no. 13–1148, was filed on November 14, 2013. In sum, six separate complaints against Mr. Rossi form the basis of the charges brought against him in these two consolidated cases.¹ All six complaints were filed against Mr. Rossi while he maintained a solo law practice. We begin by reviewing each of the six complaints.

A. Count 1—The Williams Complaint

Hayden Williams paid Mr. Rossi $2,000.00 to represent him in a lawsuit involving rental property. Mr. Williams alleged that he was not receiving rental monies due to him. Further, Mr. Williams was attempting to regain possession of the rental property. Because Mr. Williams was unable to collect rent on the subject property during the pendency of the lawsuit, he sought a speedy resolution of the case. However, when Mr. Williams attempted to contact Mr. Rossi and obtain information about the progress of his case, Mr. Rossi failed to communicate with him. Mr. Williams stated, “[W]e tried every way that we could to contact him, unsuccessfully. We went to his office twelve, fifteen times. We went there during the day. We went there in the afternoon. We phoned and phoned and phoned and no answer.” Approximately ten months after he had retained Mr. Rossi, Mr. Williams went to the Martinsburg courthouse and discovered that Mr. Rossi had not filed a lawsuit on his behalf. Thereafter, Mr. Williams filed an ethics complaint against Mr. Rossi with the ODC. Mr. Williams also sent a letter to Mr. Rossi, firing him and requesting a return of all of the documents he had provided to Mr. Rossi, as well as a refund of the $2,000.00 retainer.

The ODC sent a letter to Mr. Rossi on July 12, 2011, asking for a response to Mr. Williams's complaint. Mr. Rossi did not respond to the ODC. The ODC sent a second letter to Mr. Rossi on August 10, 2011, again asking for a response to the complaint. Mr. Rossi replied, by letter dated August 31, 2011, and admitted that he had failed to communicate with Mr. Williams. Mr. Rossi's letter further stated that he was experiencing a “deep depression” and that he had started therapy. Mr. Rossi's letter also stated that he was seeking employment “where I would not have to deal with issues related to running a business and practicing law,” but had failed to obtain such employment.

Mr. Rossi subsequently refunded the $2,000.00 retainer to Mr. Williams. However, Mr. Rossi failed to return the client file to Mr. Williams. The ODC sent two letters to Mr. Rossi instructing him to return the client file to Mr. Williams.² Mr. Williams hired another attorney who filed a lawsuit on his behalf and resolved his rental property issue within two months. Mr. Williams stated that Mr. Rossi's failure to file the lawsuit resulted in him losing approximately $7,000.00 in rental income.

The Board determined that Mr. Rossi failed to diligently work on Mr. Williams's case and failed to communicate with Mr. Williams about his case in violation of Rules 1.3,³ 1.4(a) and 1.4(b)⁴ of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Further, the Board found that Mr. Rossi violated Rule 1.16(d)⁵ of the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to return Mr. Williams's client file. Finally, the Board found that Mr. Rossi violated Rule 8.1(b)⁶ by failing to follow a directive issued by the Investigative Panel of the Lawyer Disciplinary Board⁷ AND BY FAILING TO REspond to correspondence from the odc.

B. Count 2—The Pike Complaint

Jon A. Pike retained Mr. Rossi to represent him in a “lemon law” case. Mr. Pike filed a complaint against Mr. Rossi with the ODC on August 22, 2011, alleging that Mr. Rossi had failed to communicate with him about his case. After receiving Mr. Pike's complaint, the ODC directed Mr. Rossi to communicate with Mr. Pike within ten days. Mr. Rossi complied with this directive. However, Mr. Pike filed a second complaint against Mr. Rossi on September 26, 2012, alleging that Mr. Rossi had again failed to respond to his telephone calls, text messages and emails for over two months. Mr. Pike requested that Mr. Rossi return all of the records relating to the case to him. Mr. Pike subsequently obtained a new lawyer who promptly settled his “lemon law” case. Mr. Pike described the harm he suffered as a result of Mr. Rossi's failure to communicate with him and failure to diligently work on his case as follows:

Well, it's frustration more than anything, with the car dealer and with the legal system taking a long time and not knowing what's going on.... There was a lot of frustration. There was a lot of my own time and leg work that I put in trying to resolve the case. I have no knowledge of the legalities and so that's why, you know, I got a lawyer. Besides frustration and time, and there is a possibility of financial losses, yeah, but it was frustrating more than anything else.

The ODC sent a letter to Mr. Rossi, requesting a response to the allegations contained in Mr. Pike's September 26, 2012, complaint. Mr. Rossi did not respond to the ODC's request. The ODC sent two additional letters to Mr. Rossi (in January 2013 and February 2013), requesting a response to Mr. Pike's complaint. Mr. Rossi did not respond to either of these ODC letters.

The Board determined that Mr. Rossi violated Rules 1.3 (duty to act with reasonable diligence, see footnote 3, supra ) and 1.4(a) (duty to keep the client reasonably informed, see footnote 4, supra ) in connection with his representation of Mr. Pike. Further, the Board found that Mr. Rossi's numerous failures to respond to the ODC constituted a violation of Rule 8.1(b) (see footnote 6, supra ).

C. Count 3—The Edwards Complaint

Steven Edwards paid Mr. Rossi $1,500.00 on April 20, 2011, to represent him in a divorce matter. Mr. Edwards filed a complaint against Mr. Rossi with the ODC on February 3, 2012, alleging that Mr. Rossi had failed to take any action in his case and that Mr. Rossi had failed to communicate with him about the case. Prior to filing his complaint with the ODC, Mr. Edwards sent Mr. Rossi the following email in December 2011:

I wrote you a check for the amount of $1,500.00 on April 20, 2011 as you requested for a retainer fee. You have not provided any services for me yet. I have left numerous messages on your cell and business phones and you refuse to return my calls. I have never heard of a divorce taking 9 months, especially when we [Mr. Edwards and his spouse] already have an agreement wrote up and there is nothing to contest. I requested a refund via a phone message and again I have not heard from you. I need this refund so I can hire someone who will provide this service for me. If I don't hear from you by tomorrow evening I am filing a complaint with the WV State Bar Association.

After receiving Mr. Edwards's complaint, the ODC sent letters to Mr. Rossi in February and March 2012, requesting that he respond to the complaint. Mr. Rossi failed to respond to the ODC's February and March letters. Mr. Rossi eventually responded to Mr. Edwards's complaint by letter dated May 1, 2012, stating that he had worked on the case and that he met with Mr. Edwards on several occasions. Despite his assertion that he had performed work on the case, Mr. Rossi agreed to refund the $1,500.00 retainer fee to Mr. Edwards.

On December 14, 2012, the Investigative Panel of the Board issued Mr. Rossi an admonishment for failing to respond to the ODC's repeated requests that he respond to Mr. Edwards's complaint, in violation of Rule...