Practicing With Professionalism - South Carolina Bar Association

counsel but was unsuccessful in obtaining relieffrom the court's order.
Attorney's neglect ofhis client's matter constituted a violation of
Colo. RPC 1.3. His failure to keep appointrrlents during a critical
stage in the proceeding, and his general failure to communicate with
.his client over a five-month period, despite his client's numerous
attempts to contact him, constituted a violation ofColo. RPC l.4(a),
which rose to the level ofabandonnient.) (suspension one year and
one day);
(
f. People v. Lynch, 35 P.3d 509 (Colo.O.P.DJ. 2000). (Attorney entered
into an attorney-client relationship and accepted funds from a client for
attorney's professional services in a contested post-dissolution of
marriage matter, and partially obtained the desired result for his client.
Thereafter, attorney failed to obey the court's directive to submit a
written order for the court's signature, and failed to respond to phone
calls from the client. Attorney's actions necessitated that the client
obtain replacement counsel and required the court to hold an additional
hearing. Attorney's actions violated Colo. RPC 1.3, Colo. RPC 1.4(a),
and Colo. RPC 8.4(d).) (suspension, 90 days);
g. People v. Chastain, No. GC98A53 (consolidated with No. GC98A59)
(Colo.O.P.D.l. 1999). (Attorney abandoned and caused serious harm
to nine different clients by: failing to act with reasonable diligence and (-
promptness in representing the clients; failing to adequately
communicate with them; and failing to cooperate with disciplinary
officials. Further, attorney failed to perform the requested legal
services, or refund fees that were paid for such services, in the amount
of$30,790. The South Carolina court suspended the respondent for
two years for this particular misconduct. The Hearing Board ordered
the same discipline, rather than disbarment, based in large part on
notice requirements for the imposition ofgreater discipline than
discipline in another state. (Extensive discussion ofthe former
c.R.C.P. 241.17 (now C.R.C.P. 251.21).) (suspension, two years-three
months);
2. An attorney's failure to act promptly and with reasonable diligence may
result in neglect sufficient to warrant disbarment. Colo. RPC 1.3:
a. People v. Poll, 65 P.3d 483 (Colo.O.P.D.l. 2003). (Attorney failed to
forward to the defendants' representative written discovery, failed to
respond to the- discovery, failed to respond to a motion'to compel,
failed to timely respond to a 'court order compelling responses to the
discovery, and failed to meet a court-ordered deadline for the filing of
responses to the discovery. Due to the attorney's acts and omissions,
the court dismissed the defendant clients' counterclaims and defenses
and struck the defendant clients' answer. The attorney failed to prepare
(
Professionalism CLE (2004)