In re Richard A.
Scholes, Esq., 2012 VT
56 (mem.).
As attorneys, there are several levels of discipline that we
face for our mistakes. The most
severe—disbarment—is normally reserved for financial crimes (taking client’s
money) or similar dishonesty that directly violates a client’s interest or
trust. In other words, there are some
actions that if caught will render you unfit for the practice of law—forever.
On the other end is an anonymous reprimand. In such cases, the lawyer’s name is not given
to the public, but he or she knows that they crossed a line. Such reprimands are often for minor
violations—failure to follow up on an issue in a timely manner, accidental
overdrafts, unnecessary delays where no harm follows to the client but the
level of professionalism is lacking. In such
cases nothing happens to the attorney’s ability to practice, but she is put on
notice that she should be more careful and conscientious in the future.
Slightly above the private reprimand is the public one. Here, the attorney’s name is published and
broadcast publicly as being subject to a reprimand. The attorney’s actions are severe enough to
warrant public notice and to serve as an example to others.
Today’s case falls in the latter category. Defendant was a bankruptcy attorney with a
long-established practice. In three
cases, however, he was slow in filing a client’s bankruptcy forms despite
receiving payment for the work. As the
Professional Responsibility Board found, it took Defendant in the separate
cases 20, 32, and 25 months between receiving payment and completing his
client’s basic bankruptcy filings.
An attorney has a professional obligation to act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. In each case, too much time elapsed between
taking the fee and doing the work.
Although the clients suffered no actual harm and each client
eventually obtained what he or she sought (a bankruptcy discharge), Defendant
still failed his professional obligations.
In essence, Defendant took too long to be professionally acceptable.
It is important to note that attorneys are a self-policing
profession. Lawyers review the actions
of other lawyers. This is unique from
nearly every other occupation. We have
this system because of cases like this.
Despite the lack of actual harm, the Professional Responsibility Board
recognizes that justice delayed is a form of justice denied and that a late
filed case causes stress and anxiety for the client.
The case does not appear to have been vigorously contested
or even appealed to the SCOV, but in a prefatory note, the SCOV states that it
ordered this case published to warn small firm and solo practitioners to be
aware of their obligations.
Let Spartacus and his followers line the Appian Way as a
warning to others.
Comments
Post a Comment