PCB 89

[23-May-1995]


                             STATE OF VERMONT

                        PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BOARD


In re:  PCB File No. 95.36

                            NOTICE OF DECISION
                             DECISION NO.   89

This case, involving a neglect of a legal matter for more than two years, was
submitted to us by stipulation of the parties.  The facts are somewhat
unusual from the cases of neglect which normally come before us because the
complainant here is Respondent's sister.

FACTS

Respondent, who has been a lawyer in Vermont for nearly ten years, does not
usually handle bankruptcy work.  However, in 1992 he agreed to file a
personal bankruptcy petition for his sister.  She gave him a check for $200
for filing fees and costs, which Respondent deposited in his operating
account. 

Respondent prepared the necessary documents in a timely fashion and had his
sister sign them.  He told her to gather up additional financial information
necessary to support the petition.  She accomplished this some three or four
months later and then telephoned Respondent's office for an appointment to
meet with him.  She was not successful.  

Over the next year she called or saw Respondent about once per month and
asked about the filing of her petition.  It was important to her that the
petition be filed to trigger the seven-year waiting period.  Respondent
continually assured his client that they would meet to discuss the petition. 
They never did.

In August of 1993 - over a year after Respondent first agreed to file the
bankruptcy petition -  Respondent's office staff informed the client that her
executed petition had been "misplaced" and that a new set of documents would
have to be prepared.  

The petition was not filed and in January of 1994, the client wrote to
Respondent, imploring him to get her case moving.  They met within the next
two weeks, and the client signed the new petition.  Again, Respondent did not
file the petition.

By the fall of 1994 - more than two years after Respondent first agreed to
handle the matter - the client could no longer wait for the Respondent to
act.  She contacted a new attorney.  The petition was then filed in a timely
manner.  Respondent returned the $200 she had given him for expenses.

CONCLUSIONS

By failing to attend to this case, Respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3):  "A
lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him." We find that
Respondent acted negligently and note, in mitigation, that he has no prior
disciplinary record, he co-operated with the disciplinary proceedings, and
that he is remorseful for his misconduct.  We further find that the
complainant was injured slightly by the delay and was certainly
inconvenienced.  There are no aggravating factors.

Under Standard 4.44 of the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions,
"[a]dmonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent and does
not act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, and causes little
or no actual or potential injury to a client."  We find that standard
applicable here.

A delay of over two years in filing court documents is not an insignificant
act of misconduct.  We believe, however, that this was an isolated incident. 
Respondent recognized in his initial response to the complaint that although
he was trying to do his sister a favor by handling the bankruptcy for her,
his neglect was the result of his failure to treat his sister's case like
that of any other client.  Respondent has expressed true sorrow that he has
damaged a relationship precious to him.  That knowledge, Respondent wrote,
"has hurt me more than any sanction the board could impose."  	We agree that
the cost of learning diligence has been sufficiently high in this case and
that there is little likelihood that Respondent will again neglect a legal
matter.  We, therefore, impose only a private admonition in accordance with
A.O. 9, Rule 7(A)A(5).

Dated at Rutland this 23rd  day of May, 1995.	

	PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BOARD


	     /s/
	___________________________
	Deborah S. Banse, Chair


/s/	     			/s/
___________________________	___________________________
George Crosby			Donald Marsh


/s/
___________________________	___________________________
Joseph F. Cahill, Esq.		Karen Miller, Esq.


/s/	     			/s/
___________________________	___________________________
Nancy Corsones, Esq.		J. Garvan Murtha, Esq.


/s/	     			/s/
___________________________	___________________________
Paul S. Ferber, Esq.		Robert F. O'Neill, Esq.


/s/	     			/s/
___________________________	___________________________
Nancy Foster			Ruth Stokes


/s/
___________________________	___________________________
Rosalyn L. Hunneman		Jane Woodruff, Esq.


/s/	     			/s/
___________________________	___________________________
Robert P. Keiner, Esq.		Edward Zuccaro, Esq.




/usr3/wsc/9536.decision