 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Disciplinary Board of The Supreme Court of The State of North Dakota v. Seaworth12/6/1999
osts and expenses of the disciplinary proceedings.
[ ] Seaworth timely filed her objections to the order under N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 3.1(F)(2). The disciplinary board had jurisdiction under N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 3.1(E). This Court has jurisdiction under N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 3.1(F).
II.
[ ] This Court reviews disciplinary proceedings de novo on the record under a clear and convincing standard of proof. Disciplinary Bd. v. Leier, 1997 ND 79, 3, 562 N.W.2d 741. We give "due weight to the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Disciplinary Board." Disciplinary Bd. v. Landon, 1999 ND 202, 10 (citing Leier, at 3). We do not, however, act as a mere "rubber stamp" for those findings and recommendations. Id. Each disciplinary case must be considered upon its own facts to decide what discipline is warranted. Leier, at 3 (citing Disciplinary Bd. v. Nassif, 547 N.W.2d 541, 542 (N.D. 1996)).
A
[ ] The issue in this case is whether there is clear and convincing evidence Seaworth violated N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.3 and 1.4. "Disciplinary counsel bears the burden of proving each alleged violation of the disciplinary rules by clear and convincing evidence." Disciplinary Bd. v. Dooley, 1999 ND 184, 28, 599 N.W.2d 619 (citing Disciplinary Bd. v. Larson, 485 N.W.2d 345, 348 (N.D. 1992)).
1
[ ] The hearing body found Seaworth failed to respond to sixteen letters from the Bureau regarding Motl's claim. Seaworth argues she did not have a duty to respond to opposing counsel's correspondence. Rule 1.3, N.D.R. Prof. Conduct, imposed a duty on Seaworth to respond to the Bureau's communications if her response would have protected Motl's interests. "Perhaps no professional shortcoming is more widely resented than procrastination." N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.3 cmt. The Comment to Rule 1.3 further states " client's interests often can be adversely affected by the passage of time or the change of conditions," thus "a lawyer should carry through to conclusion all matters undertaken for a client."
[ ] The hearing body found Motl's failure to respond "prejudiced Motl's case with respect to obtaining an appropriate settlement." Assistant disciplinary counsel argues Motl was prejudiced because, as of the date of oral argument, Motl's claim against the Bureau had been continuing for twelve years and was still unresolved. Seaworth claims the fact Motl's claim remains unresolved is due to circumstances beyond her control. Seaworth argues that because she only represented Motl for a portion of the twelve-year period and because Motl rejected the Bureau's settlement offers and refused to cooperate with Seaworth regarding her psychological claim, Motl's unresolved claim cannot solely be attributed to her.
[ ] Assistant disciplinary counsel also argues Motl was injured as a result of Seaworth's failure to respond to the Bureau's letters because her lack of response caused Motl anxiety and undermined her trust in Seaworth.
[ ] From our review of the record, it is unclear whether Motl was in fact prejudiced by Seaworth's failure to respond on her behalf. Rule 1.3, N.D.R. Prof. Conduct, does not require a client to be prejudiced by his or her lawyer's failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness for a violation of the rule to occur. "Even when the client's interests are not affected in substance . . . unreasonable delay can cause a client needless anxiety and undermine confidence in the lawyer's trustworthiness." N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.3 cmt.
[ ] A lawyer is required to "act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.3. The record shows
Page 1 2 3 4 5 North Dakota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|