In re Rymanowski, No. A11–0340.

• Decision Date: 18 January 2012
• Docket Number: No. A11–0340.
• Citation: 809 N.W.2d 217
• Parties: In re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Joseph Anthony RYMANOWSKI, Jr., a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 240606.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

809 N.W.2d 217

In re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Joseph Anthony RYMANOWSKI, Jr., a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 240606.

No. A11–0340.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 18, 2012.

Syllabus by the Court

Disbarment is the appropriate discipline for a lawyer who failed to account for client funds, failed to notify clients of withdrawals from his trust account, failed to refund unearned advance fees, filed a claim without consulting with his client, failed to comply with discovery requests, engaged in a pattern of failing to communicate with clients and neglecting client matters, and failed to cooperate with the Director's disciplinary investigation.

Martin A. Cole, Director, Patrick R. Burns, First Assistant Director, Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, St. Paul, MN, for petitioner.

Joseph A. Rymanowski, Jr., St. Paul, MN, pro se.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (Director) served and filed a petition for disciplinary action against Joseph Anthony Rymanowski, Jr. The petition alleges that Rymanowski engaged in professional misconduct involving a number of clients. As alleged, the misconduct includes Rymanowski's failure to provide competent representation, failure to consult with a client before filing a counterclaim, failure to act with diligence and promptness, failure to communicate with clients, failure to return fees paid for services he never provided, failure to safeguard client funds in his trust account, failure to provide notice of withdrawals from his trust account, failure to provide an accounting of his clients' funds, failure to provide reasonable notice before terminating representation, failure to repay unearned advance fees, initiation of a nonmeritorious claim, failure to expedite litigation consistent with his clients' interests, failure to obey the rules of a tribunal, failure to reasonably and diligently respond to discovery requests, dishonesty, and failure to cooperate with the disciplinary process. The petition further alleges that Rymanowski's conduct violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1,¹ 1.2,² 1.3,³ 1.4,⁴ 1.5,⁵ 1.15(a) and (b),⁶ 1.16(d),⁷ 3.1, ⁸ 3.2,⁹ 3.4(c) and (d),¹⁰ 8.1(b), ¹¹ 8.4(c) and (d),¹² and Rule 25,¹³ Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR).

Rymanowski was admitted to practice law in Minnesota on October 22, 1993. Rymanowski's disciplinary history includes a private admonition in 1999 for failing to pay a judgment entered against him for professionally incurred indebtedness and for failing to comply with a court order requiring financial disclosures. It also includes private probation in 2003 for failing to properly maintain his client trust account and failing to cooperate with the Director's investigation of his trust account. Rymanowski is currently administratively suspended from the practice of law in Minnesota for failing to pay the attorney registration fee that was due on October 1, 2010.

Rymanowski was personally served with the disciplinary petition on February 14, 2011. He has not filed an answer or otherwise responded to the petition. As a result of Rymanowski's failure to answer the petition, the allegations in the petition are deemed admitted, pursuant to Rule 13(b), RLPR. In addition to not answering or otherwise responding to the petition, Rymanowski did not file a brief or appear at oral argument before our court. Because Rymanowski's admitted misconduct constitutes serious misconduct in violation of our professional conduct rules, we conclude that disbarment is the appropriate sanction.

I.

Rymanowski's misconduct falls into four categories: financial misconduct, client neglect, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and noncooperation with the disciplinary process. We summarize that misconduct below.

Rymanowski was retained by Client A ¹⁴ as counsel in her marriage dissolution. During his representation of Client A, Rymanowski was entrusted with a $6,800 check, payable to a business Client A and her husband operated. Disposition of the check was discussed at a court hearing on February 23, 2010. At that hearing, Rymanowski was directed to deposit the check into his trust account with the understanding that opposing counsel would be consulted before any disbursements of the proceeds from the check were made. Proceeds from the check were not deposited into Rymanowski's trust account until May 6, 2010. Subsequently, Rymanowski disbursed the proceeds from the check, issuing one check for $1,000 payable to his client and five checks payable to himself totaling $5,800. Rymanowski did not consult with opposing counsel before these disbursements were made, nor did he disclose to opposing counsel that five of the disbursements were to himself. Rymanowski abandoned his representation of Client A in mid–2010 and ceased all communication with her. Rymanowski's conduct violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.15(a) and (b), 3.4(c), and 8.4(c) and (d).

Rymanowski was retained by Client B as counsel in a civil suit. As part of his representation of Client B, Rymanowski failed to timely respond to discovery requests, prompting opposing counsel to file two motions to compel. Rymanowski withdrew as counsel for Client B the day before a scheduled motion-to-compel hearing. As a result, Client B was unrepresented at the hearing. Rymanowski's conduct violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(d), 3.4(d), and 8.4(d).

The principals of a limited liability company (Client C) retained Rymanowski in connection with a pending possession-of-commercial-property action in housing court. After convincing Client C that the housing court action should be dismissed and that Client C should instead pursue an action for damages, Rymanowski commenced a civil action. Over the course of his representation, Rymanowski failed to respond to discovery requests and failed to inform his clients about discovery requests and scheduled depositions. As a result, the principals missed their scheduled depositions. Less than two weeks after the missed depositions, opposing counsel moved for summary judgment based in large part on Rymanowski's failure to comply with the discovery requests. Rymanowski's conduct violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 3.2, 3.4(d), and 8.4(d).

In another client matter, Rymanowski was retained to assist a group of professionals (Client D) in a civil dispute. In June 2008, Rymanowski received $16,000 as an advance against fees that were to be retained in his trust account until earned. The Director's investigation was unable to determine whether the $16,000 advance was actually deposited into Rymanowski's trust account. The investigation did, however, disclose that the $16,000 was not in Rymanowski's trust account at the time of the investigation and that Rymanowski never provided his clients with written notice of the “time, amount, and the purpose of withdrawals from the funds that were to be held in trust nor did he provide the clients with an accounting” of those funds. Additionally, Rymanowski failed to adequately communicate with Client D or keep Client D reasonably informed about the progress of the matter despite the clients' numerous requests for information. Rymanowski's conduct violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.15(b).

Rymanowski was retained by Client E on November 28, 2009, for the purpose of reviewing the conservatorship of her son. Rymanowski was paid an initial advance fee of $500 and was later paid an additional $2,000 nonrefundable flat fee to file a motion to have Client E's son released from a group home. On May 19, 2010, Rymanowski told Client E that he could not get her son out of the group home and indicated that he would refund the fee she had paid for that purpose. On June 9, 2010, Rymanowski called Client E and told her that a court hearing had been set for July 8, 2010, on a motion to remove her son from the group home and that she was not to attend the hearing. Rymanowski provided no explanation to Client E as to how the court hearing date had arisen after earlier telling her that he could not get her son out of the group home. On July 8, Client E called the court to learn the outcome of the hearing, only to be told that no such hearing had been scheduled or had taken place. Despite numerous attempts by Client E to contact Rymanowski, Rymanowski has not communicated with Client E or refunded any of the fees. Rymanowski's conduct violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, and 8.4(c).

Rymanowski was retained by Client F to file underpaid patient medical claims in workers' compensation matters. For his services, Rymanowski was paid an advance fee of $10,000. The Director's investigation was again unable to determine whether this advance fee was ever deposited in Rymanowski's trust account, but the funds were not in the account at the time of the investigation. Client F sent Rymanowski approximately 20 claims to pursue, but Rymanowski did nothing to pursue any of the claims and failed to communicate with Client F about the status of the claims. Rymanowski was discharged as Client F's counsel in 2010 and has not refunded any portion of the $10,000 advance fee payment. Rymanowski's conduct violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.15(b), 1.16(d), and 8.4(c).

Rymanowski was retained by Client G in 2009 to help defend a claim for past due assessments owed to a townhouse homeowners' association (the association). In December 2009, on Client G's behalf, Rymanowski served an answer and counterclaim in response to the association's summons and complaint. The counterclaim was asserted without consulting Client G. Rymanowski failed to appear in court on August 31, 2010, for a hearing on a summary judgment motion brought by the association. Rymanowski did not inform Client G of the hearing on the motion, although Client G attended the hearing. At the hearing, Client G indicated...