Matter of Haupt
| Citation | 422 A.2d 768 |
| Decision Date | 17 October 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. M-36-80.,M-36-80. |
| Parties | In the Matter of Bruce W. HAUPT. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Columbia District |
No appearance was entered on behalf of respondent Haupt.
Fred Grabowsky, Washington, D.C., Bar Counsel, filed the Report and Recommendations of the Board [on Professional Responsibility.]
Before MACK, FERREN and PRYOR, Associate Judges.
This disciplinary matter is before the court on a petition of the Board on Professional Responsibility (hereinafter referred to as the Board) recommending that respondent be suspended for a period of three years. We accept the findings of fact made by the Board and adopt the recommended disposition.
Two separate petitions instituting formal disciplinary proceedings into four unrelated matters were filed on August 13, 1979 and October 5, 1979. The Hearing Committee conducted a hearing on the four counts on November 28, 1979. The Hearing Committee filed the following findings with the Board on March 12, 1980.
Late in 1978, Mrs. Dorothy M. Flythe contacted respondent's office to inquire about obtaining representation in a divorce proceeding. Mrs. Flythe had been separated since 1973 and did not know the whereabouts of her husband. Mrs. Flythe retained respondent, signed the complaint, and paid toward the fee through respondent's secretary, Ms. Marie Collins. In February, Ms. Collins requested $100 for service by publication, and Mrs. Flythe paid it.
Respondent, in the early months of 1979, made no attempts to ascertain the where about of the defendant, but rather had a service Marshal attempt to serve defendant at his last known address where he had not lived for years.
In May, after repeated attempts to contact respondent, Mrs. Flythe contacted the consumer assistance office of a local television station who forwarded her complaint to Bar Counsel. Soon thereafter, in July, respondent contacted and met with Mrs. Flythe for the first and only time, assuring her that she could have her divorce by Christmas. He also asked for and received more money for service by publication. About this time the Superior Court routinely dismissed the divorce complaint. Respondent filed a motion to reinstate the complaint. The Hearing Committee found that respondent either filed a form motion or was unfamiliar with the facts of the case when he filed the motion. The motion was denied without prejudice.
In the interim respondent replied to the letter of inquiry from Bar Counsel stating that the motion had been reinstated and that nothing was being done because Mrs. Flythe had not paid for publication. Nothing further was ever done by respondent.
The Hearing Committee concluded that respondent's conduct was in violation of three disciplinary rules. First, respondent's conduct constituted neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him, DR 6-101(A)(3). Respondent's total effort was to file the complaint and cause a summons to be issued. The motion for reinstatement was likely an attempt to mollify Bar Counsel. Respondent did not ever attempt service by publication nor ever respond to Mrs. Flythe's telephone calls. Mrs. Flythe paid respondent a total of $300.
The Hearing Committee also found a violation of DR 1-102(AX4), conduct involving deceit and misrepresentation. Ms. Collins had requested and received money for publication in February. Respondent asked for and received money for publication in July. The Hearing Committee concluded that respondent never intended to use the money for publication purposes. Respondent was deceitful in telling Mrs. Flythe that she would have her divorce by Christmas. Finally, in his letter to Bar Counsel, respondent stated that he had not received money for publication and that the divorce complaint had been reinstated; both were untrue.
Finally, the committee found a violation of DR 7-101(A)(1), intentional failure to seek the lawful objectives of a client through reasonably available means. The committee found that respondent was more than merely neglectful; he was fully aware of his obligation to seek a divorce for Mrs. Flythe and of his failure to do so.
Ms. Joyce Johnson retained respondent to represent her in a divorce action. She terminated the representation and demanded a refund in toto. Respondent refused to return the retainer and Ms. Johnson filed suit in Small Claims Court. She attempted to serve respondent by certified mail to his office which was not accepted. A U. S. Marshal attempted to serve respondent in his office nine times within a ten day period, and three times at his Maryland address. All were unsuccessful. The Hearing Committee recommended dismissing the charges, based on allegedly avoiding service, holding that Bar Counsel failed to introduce sufficient evidence of a violation.
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.
Count IV involves a reciprocal discipline matter. Respondent was suspended for 90 days in Maryland in 1975 for conduct in violation of DR 1-102(AX4), conduct involving deceit and misrepresentation. Respondent was retained to represent a juvenile in the Montgomery County courthouse. The juvenile's fiancee accompanied respondent to the cellblock where only attorneys and their assistants were allowed. Respondent told the deputy sheriff that the young woman was his assistant, and she was allowed to enter. Soon thereafter, she was asked to leave after being observed embracing the juvenile. Respondent testified that he knew that she would have been denied permission to enter if he had disclosed the relationship. The Maryland court imposed a 90 day suspension in view of the fact that this was his second disciplinary offense.
Rather than handling this matter as a reciprocal discipline action, the Board ordered that the matter proceed de novo. The Hearing Committee found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(AX4), but held that in view of the minor nature of the infraction and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MATTER OF ADDAMS
...Court should not preclude consideration of mitigating factors. See In re Reback, 513 A.2d 226, 231 (D.C. 1986) (en banc); In re Haupt, 422 A.2d 768, 771 (D.C. 1980); In re Smith, 403 A.2d 296, 303 (D.C. The use of mandatory sanction or so-called "per se rules" should be avoided in the disci......
-
In the Matter of Willcher
...of the seriousness of the misconduct involved and inconsistent with the sanctions imposed in similar situations. See, e.g., In re Haupt, 422 A.2d 768 (D.C.App.1980), and In re Smith, 403 A.2d 296 (D.C.App.1979).5 Because it is conduct which contains the element of dishonesty, and not mere n......
-
In re Artis
...the Board's sense of equity in these matters unless that exercise of judgment proves to be unreasonable. Id. (quoting In re Haupt, 422 A.2d 768, 771 (D.C.1980)). The Board's recommendation and Bar Counsel's challenges must be considered applying these B. Recommendations for Sanction The pri......
-
IN RE GOFFE, 90-BG-888
...criminal punishment, is not an exact science but may depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular proceeding. In re Haupt, 422 A.2d 768, 771 (D.C. 1980) ("Within the limits of the mandate to achieve consistency, each case must be decided on its particular facts"). Generally spea......