 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State ex rel Oklahoma Bar Association v. Loeliger11/1/2005
findings, conclusions of law or recommendations for discipline. Rather, the ultimate responsibility for imposition of professional discipline is solely within the purview of this Court. In considering the record before us, as well as the recommendations of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal, our standard of review is de novo. Before we may impose discipline upon an attorney, the charges must be established by clear and convincing evidence. The function of disciplinary proceedings is not punishment. Here, the purpose of discipline is to gauge a lawyer's continued fitness to practice law, with a view to safeguarding the interest of the public, of the courts and of the legal profession.
Respondent did not diligently and promptly represent his client. Rule 1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct states: "A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." Although it is disputed as to when the respondent's representation of Sullivan began, it is undisputed that respondent was aware of Sullivan's genuine belief that such a relationship existed prior to February of 2002. The record also clearly establishes that respondent failed to take any action whatsoever on behalf of his client prior to February of 2002. Accordingly, there was a clear violation of Rule 1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Respondent failed to keep his client reasonably informed and to expedite litigation, pursuant to rules 1.4 and 3.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. On numerous occasions Sullivan asked respondent to confirm that his claim had been filed. Each time Sullivan asked for respondent's assurance, respondent replied that he had filed the claim in federal court. No claim was ever filed in either federal or state court by respondent. Despite Sullivan's many requests for updates on the status of his claim, respondent either failed to respond or misled Sullivan, claiming that fictitious negotiations were under way. Respondent went so far in his charade as to fabricate, and require Sullivan to sign, a settlement agreement and release form indemnifying Westquip of any further obligation toward Sullivan.
In February of 2004, two years after the tolling of the statute of limitations in Sullivan's negligence claim, Sullivan requested a copy of the petition, which respondent had allegedly filed in federal court. Three days later, respondent faxed a copy of a petition filed by Berger, Sullivan's previous attorney. Respondent sent the petition with the knowledge that it had been filed and dismissed more than three years prior. Respondent's egregious behavior steps far beyond failure to inform and apprise one's client. Respondent acted to affirmatively deceive his client for more than two years. Such behavior is a clear violation of Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Respondent's misrepresentations to his client rise to the level of "dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation" pursuant to Rule 8.4(c). A misrepresentation must be shown by clear and convincing evidence that the declarant had an underlying evil or bad intent for misrepresenting facts to his client. Our inquiry into improper motive requires that we first ascertain how, and to what extent, respondent stood to benefit from his misrepresentation. Respondent's intent is clear from his testimony: he misrepresented facts to his client in the interest of self-preservation. Respondent admits to falsely assuring his client that negotiations were underway. Respondent was aware at all times that the statute of limitations barred his client from any further legal actions related to his claim against Westquip. Respondent went so far as to require his client to sign a release that resp
Page 1 2 3 4 Oklahoma Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|