|FOR THE RESPONDENT |FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT |
| |DISCIPINARY COMMISSION |
| | |
|Robert G. Williams, pro se |Donald R. Lundberg, Executive |
| |Secretary |
| |Fredrick L. Rice, Staff Attorney |
| |115 West Washington Street, Suite 1165|
| |Indianapolis, IN 46204 |
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF )
) CASE NO. 55S00-9805-DI-283
ROBERT G. WILLIAMS )
DISCIPLINARY ACTION
March 19, 2002
Per Curiam
Lawyer Robert G. Williams’ persistent and pervasive neglect of his
clients’ cases leads us to conclude today that he should be disbarred from
the practice of law.
This case is now before us for final resolution upon the hearing
officer’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, submitted after full
evidentiary hearing on the Disciplinary Commission’s six-count verified
complaint for disciplinary action charging Respondent Williams with lawyer
misconduct. Where neither the Commission nor the respondent petitions this
Court for review of those findings, as they are permitted to do under
Ind.Admission and Discipline Rule 23(15), we may adopt the hearing
officer’s factual findings while reserving final judgment as to misconduct
and sanction. Matter of Campbell, 702 N.E.2d 692 (Ind. 1998).
The respondent, who practices in Morgan County, was admitted to the
Bar of this state in 1970. The hearing officer’s findings relative to the
complaint’s six counts describe the respondent’s pattern of neglect of his
clients’ cases:
Count I: After initiating a claim for damages on behalf of a client, the
respondent failed thereafter to respond to opposing counsel’s discovery
requests or to file witness or exhibit lists. The respondent also failed
to abide by the trial court’s discovery orders or to pay opposing counsel’s
attorney fees as ordered. He failed to respond to his client’s inquiries
about the case, did not withdraw from representation when she demanded his
withdrawal, and, without the client’s consent, proceeded to act as her
attorney at trial.
Count II: After initiating a worker’s compensation claim for a client, the
respondent failed to respond to the opposing party’s discovery requests,
failed to communicate with the client about the case, and failed to reduce
his contingency fee agreement to writing. When the client eventually fired
the respondent, the respondent failed to acknowledge his termination and
did not return to the client requested case file materials to which she was
entitled. Although the Commission later demanded from the respondent a
response to the client’s grievance, the respondent failed to provide any
response.
Count III: The respondent represented a criminal defendant on an appeal of
his conviction. The defendant’s prison sentence had been stayed pending
prosecution of the appeal. After initiating the appeal, the respondent
filed three successive petitions for extension of time during which to file
the record. The Court of Appeals’ order granting the third extension noted
that it was the “Final Extension.” Nonetheless, the respondent then filed
a motion for a fourth extension, which was granted. The respondent finally
submitted the record, albeit several weeks past the fourth extended filing
deadline and with errors requiring its return to the respondent. Due to
its tardiness, the court marked the record “received,” and not “filed.”
The respondent then filed a motion for leave to file a belated appeal.
Although the court granted that motion, the respondent again failed timely
to resubmit the record, resulting in the appeal’s dismissal. The trial
court ordered the defendant, who had been unable to contact the respondent
to learn anything about the case, to surrender to begin serving his
sentence. The respondent filed a second motion for leave to file a belated
appeal, which the Court of Appeals granted. The respondent subsequently
filed proof with the trial court of the belated appeal’s initiation,
resulting in the defendant’s release. The respondent then filed three
successive motions for extension of time to file the appellant’s brief.
The court’s order granting the last one noted that is was a “Final
Extension.” Undeterred, the respondent filed a fourth request for
extension, which the court denied and which prompted the trial court to
again order the defendant taken into custody. The defendant, unable to
contact the respondent, hired another lawyer who managed to secure
permission to file yet another belated appeal. Because that lawyer was
unable to persuade the respondent to turn over the record, the court of
appeals issued an order to show cause why the respondent should not be held
in contempt. Later, when the Commission demanded the respondent’s response
to the defendant’s grievance, the respondent failed to comply.
Count IV: While pursuing a medical malpractice claim on behalf of a
client, the respondent failed to make arrangements with a medical expert to
provide an opinion to support the claim. The result was that the court
granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The respondent
failed to advise his client that the defendants prevailed on summary
judgment. Instead, he proceeded to seek medical records as if the case was
still active. Between late 1997 and March 1998, the client attempted to
contact the respondent to learn about the status of the case, but the
respondent never responded. He likewise never responded to the
Commission’s two demands for response to the client’s grievance.
Count V: The respondent and a client met in March and April 1997 regarding
her claim the client wanted to pursue against an auto dealer. Between
April 1997 and early 1998, the client was unable to contact the respondent
to learn of the status of her case. The client subsequently filed a
grievance with the Commission, which demanded a response from the
respondent. He never responded.
Count VI: Although the respondent adequately represented a client in a
land dispute case up to the point when a land transaction settlement was
agreed to, the respondent failed to make final arrangements for the
transaction or to notify the parties why the transaction could not be
scheduled. Both the respondent’s clients and the opposing party attempted
repeatedly between the spring of 1997 and the spring of 1998 to learn from
the respondent why the meeting had not been scheduled. The respondent
never replied. Later, the respondent failed to respond to two Commission
demands for response to the grievance the respondent’s clients filed
against him.
We find that the respondent violated Ind.Professional Conduct Rule
1.2(a) by failing to abide by his clients’ objectives of representation;
Prof.Cond.R 1.3 by failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness;
Prof.Cond.R. 1.4 by failing to keep his clients adequately informed about
the status of their cases, failing to respond to their requests for
information, and failing to explain matters to the extent reasonably
practicable to allow them to make informed decisions regarding their cases;
Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(c) by failing to reduce a contingency fee agreement to
writing; Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(d) by failing to take reasonable steps, upon
termination of representation, to protect the interests of his clients;
Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(a)(3) by failing to withdraw from representation after
being discharged by his client; Prof.Cond.R. 3.2 by failing to expedite
litigation consistent with the interests of this clients; Prof.Cond.R.
3.4(d) by failing to comply with legally proper discovery orders;
Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) by failing to comply with a lawful demand made by a
disciplinary authority; Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) by engaging in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation; and
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) by engaging in conduct that was prejudicial to the
administration of justice.
The hearing officer found several matters aggravating the
respondent’s misconduct. She noted that the respondent has been
disciplined before by this Court for similar misconduct. Matter of
Williams, 461 N.E.2d 1121 (Ind. 1984) (suspended for not fewer than two
years for neglect of client matters causing damage to clients); reinstated
at 535 N.E.2d 1158 (Ind. 1989). The hearing officer pointed out that the
respondent failed to appear at two of three scheduled pre-trial hearings in
this disciplinary matter, and that he did not appear at final hearing.
Finally, the hearing officer found that the respondent was obstructive in
the Commission’s efforts to prosecute this case by refusing to claim or
accept mail sent in connection with this case. The hearing officer
recommended that the respondent be suspended for 180 days with any
reinstatement conditioned upon successful petition before this Court. The
Commission has filed a memorandum regarding proper discipline, arguing that
the deceptive element attendant to some of the respondent’s misconduct,
coupled with serial nature of his neglect and his manifestations of disdain
for the disciplinary process, warrants at least a three-year suspension.
We are not bound by the hearing officer’s recommended sanction.
Matter of Clifford, 665 N.E.2d 907 (Ind. 1996); Matter of Rajan, 526 N.E.2d
1185 (Ind. 1988). We agree with the Commission that the sheer breadth of
the respondent’s misconduct warrants severe discipline. Serial neglect by
lawyers of their clients' legal affairs indicates grave professional
shortcomings activating this Court's obligation to protect the public from
unfit practitioners. Matter of Roberts, 727 N.E.2d 705 (Ind.2000). Adding
to that the damage the respondent inflicted upon his clients and his
refusal to participate meaningfully in the Commission’s prosecution of this
case, we conclude that severe discipline is warranted. In cases of similar
misconduct, we have imposed sanctions designed to protect the public from
the offending lawyer’s acts. Matter of Ransom-Radford, 746 N.E.2d 977
(Ind. 2001) (disbarment for 14 counts of neglect and abandonment of
practice), Matter of Drozda, 653 N.E.2d 991 (Ind. 1995) (suspension for not
fewer than 3 years for 13 counts of client neglect and failure to refund
unearned fees), Matter of McGrath, 626 N.E.2d 449 (serial neglect of client
matters and knowing deceit of clients warranted disbarment, in light of
lack of any mitigating factors).
In light of these considerations and precedent, we find that the
respondent, Robert G. Williams, should be disbarred as well. The Clerk is
directed to strike his name from the Roll of Attorneys.
The Clerk of this Court is further directed to provide notice
of this order in accordance with Admis.Disc.R. 23(3)(d), to provide notice
of this order to the Hon. Judith Hawley Conley, and to provide the clerk of
the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the clerk of
each of the United States District Courts in this state, and the clerks of
the United States Bankruptcy Courts in this state with the last known
address of respondent as reflected in the records of the Clerk.
Costs of this proceeding are assessed against the respondent.
Shepard, C.J., and Dickson and Boehm, JJ., concur.
Sullivan and Rucker, JJ., dissent, believing the sanction too severe for
the misconduct.