failure to inform client of a material fact for two years sufficient to constitute deceit and misrepresentation
How later courts described this case
- failure to inform client of a material fact for two years sufficient to constitute deceit and misrepresentation
- "The very submission of the second complaint was a false representation that [the client] had signed that complaint and authorized its filing”
- attorneys violated DR 1-102(A)(5) by forging client’s signature on complaint, even though facts and arguments in forged version were identical to those in previous version validly signed by client
- neglect means ―indifference and a consistent failure to carry out the obligations which the lawyer has assumed to [her] client or a conscious disregard for the responsibility owed to the client‖
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
TERRY, Associate Judge,
concurring:
I join fully in the court’s opinion. I write these few words to dispel a shadow cast by the dissent.
Our dissenting colleague suggests that in deciding what sanction to impose, we should take into account whether the interests of respondents’ client were prejudiced. In my judgment that is not really an issue. The evidence shows that respondents engaged in patently dishonest conduct which was calculated to deceive the court and which was grossly prejudicial to the administration of justice. Such conduct undermines public confidence in the legal profession and in the integrity of our judicial system. It is for that reason that I believe we must come down fairly hard on these two respondents (or on any other lawyers who engage in similar conduct). Whether the client’s interests were prejudiced is of little or no consequence. Thus I have voted for a year-and-a-day suspension; anything less would be a mere slap on the wrist.
Because this is a case of first impression, the sanction we impose here will be the standard for future cases. I think the court must be especially firm in letting the bar know that conduct such as that which these two attorneys engaged in will not be tolerated under any circumstances. Were it not for respondents’ unblemished records, I would probably vote to suspend them for an even longer period.