|FOR THE RESPONDENT |FOR THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT |
| |DISCIPINARY COMMISSION |
| | |
|No appearance. |Donald R. Lundberg, Executive |
| |Secretary |
| |Robert C. Shook, Staff Attorney |
| |115 West Washington Street, Suite |
| |1060 |
| |Indianapolis, IN 46204 |
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF )
) CASE NO. 49S00-0006-DI-388
KATHLEEN RANSOM RADFORD )
DISCIPLINARY ACTION
May 14, 2001
Per Curiam
Kathleen Ransom Radford agreed to represent clients in legal matters,
then failed to take any meaningful action at all on their behalves, and
ultimately abandoned her law practice without seeing to it that the
clients’ interests were adequately protected. She also failed to refund to
the clients almost $4,000 in unearned retainer fees they had paid to her.
This attorney disciplinary case comes before us now upon the report
of the hearing officer who conducted evidentiary hearing on the
Disciplinary Commission’s 14-count complaint for disciplinary action. The
report finds misconduct as charged. The respondent did not appear during
any stage of this proceeding. Neither the Commission nor the respondent
has petitioned this Court for review of the hearing officer’s report, as
permitted by Ind.Admission and Discipline Rule 23(15). That being the
case, we adopt the hearing officer’s findings, but reserve final judgment
as to misconduct and discipline.
Our jurisdiction in this case is conferred by the respondent’s
admission to the bar of this state in 1982. She is currently not in good
standing, having been administratively suspended from the practice of law
for failure to pay her annual attorney registration fees or to comply with
continuing legal education requirements.
The fact patterns found by the hearing officer as to each of the
complaint’s 14 counts are essentially the same. In late 1998 or early
1999, the respondent agreed to represent various clients in a variety of
legal matters: personal bankruptcies, the creation of a trust, a
collection matter, a wage dispute, a guardianship, a paternity action, a
custody modification, and other matters. Many of the clients paid to the
respondent retainer fees. After agreeing the handle the clients’ legal
matters, the respondent thereafter failed to take meaningful action on
their behalves. On some occasions, the respondent advised the clients that
their desired pleadings had been filed before a tribunal, or that their
cases were otherwise proceeding, when in fact she had taken no action.
Later, communications between the respondent and the clients broke down,
with the clients being unable to contact the respondent to learn anything
about their legal matters in the respondent’s care. Ultimately, upon
contacting the respondent’s office, some clients were advised that she was
no longer employed there. Following the respondent’s abandonment of these
clients’ cases, she failed to refund to them unearned portions of retainers
they had paid to her. The aggregate amount of the unearned legal fees she
failed to refund was approximately $3,825.
In response to client grievances underlying each count of the
Commission’s complaint, the Commission, pursuant to Ind.Admission and
Discipline Rule 23(10)(2),[1] demanded from the respondent responses.
Despite the demands, the respondent never provided the responses.
Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.2(a) requires lawyers to abide
by their clients’ decisions regarding the objectives of representation.[2]
Professional Conduct Rule 1.3 requires lawyers to act with reasonable
diligence and promptness when representing their clients.[3] The
respondent violated those rules by her consistent, complete failure to take
action on her clients’ behalves.
Professional Conduct Rule 1.4(a) provides that a lawyer shall promptly
comply with reasonable requests for information from clients about the
legal matters the lawyer is handling on behalf of a client. [4] The
respondent violated that rule by failing to respond to her clients’
persistent inquiries about the status of their cases. Professional
Conduct Rule 1.4(b) requires that lawyers explain matters to their clients
to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed
decisions regarding the representation.[5] The respondent violated that
rule by her actions in each count when she abandoned representation of her
clients’ interests without prior notification or consultation with any of
the clients.
Professional Conduct Rule 1.5(b) provides that a lawyer’s fee be
reasonable. The respondent violated that rule by collecting from her
clients retainer fees upon agreeing to provide specific legal services to
them, then failing to ever refund those fees after providing no meaningful
service whatsoever.
Professional Conduct Rule 1.16(d) provides that lawyers, upon
termination of representation, shall take steps to protect the interest of
their clients.[6] The respondent violated the rule by failing to refund
to her clients unearned retainer fees and, in one instance, by failing upon
termination of representation to return to the clients case file materials
to which the client was entitled.
Each of the respondent’s failures to respond to the Commission’s
demands for information in response to client grievances violated
Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b), which requires a lawyer to respond to a lawful demand
for information from a disciplinary authority.[7]
Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(c) provides that it is professional
misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit, or misrepresentation. By advising clients that their anticipated
causes of action had been filed and/or that they were progressing when in
fact the respondent had taken no action, she violated the rule.
Having found misconduct, we must now determine an appropriate
sanction. Factors we consider in this assessment include the nature of the
misconduct, the duty violated, the lawyer’s mental state, the actual or
potential harm caused by the misconduct, the duty of this Court to preserve
the integrity of the profession, and the potential risk to the public in
permitting the respondent to continue in the profession. Matter of Drozda,
653 N.E.2d 991 (Ind. 1995). 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). The present case depicts a lawyer
who simply walked away from her practice in total disregard for her clients
and legal process generally. Her actions, especially in light of her
failure to appear and defend herself against the Commission’s charges,[8]
demonstrate her unfitness to continue in the profession. Historically,
this Court has imposed the severest of sanction in similar cases involving
roughly analogous litanies of client abandonment, misrepresentation, and
fee commandeering, especially where there is little or no evidence of
extenuating factors. See, e.g., 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); Matter of Hosea,
245 Ind. 680, 201 N.E.2d 560 (1964) (disbarment for collection of fees and
subsequent failure to represent client). See also Matter of Light, 741
N.E.2d 1245 (Ind. 2001) (three year suspension in addition to three year
pendente lite suspension for 13 counts of client neglect and failure to
refund unearned fees, where the record contained evidence that the
respondent attempted, albeit improperly, to elect “inactive” status at
about the time of his misconduct).
It is, therefore, ordered that Kathleen Ransom Radford is hereby
disbarred. The Clerk of this Court is directed to strike her name from the
Roll of Attorneys.
The Clerk of this Court is directed to provide notice of this order in
accordance with Admis.Disc.R. 23(3)(d) 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.
-----------------------
[1] That rule provides, in relevant part:
If the Executive Secretary determines that [a grievance] does raise a
substantial question of misconduct, [the Executive Secretary shall] send a
copy of the grievance by certified mail to the attorney against whom the
grievance is filed (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") and shall
demand a written response. The respondent shall respond within twenty (20)
days, or within such additional time as the Executive Secretary may allow,
after the respondent receives a copy of the grievance.
[2] Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.2(a) provides:
A lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the
objectives of representation . . . and shall consult with the client as to
the means by which they are to be pursued.
[3] Professional Conduct Rule 1.3 provides:
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client.
[4] In toto, Professional Conduct Rule 1.4(a) provides:
A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of
a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.
[5] Professional Conduct Rule 1.4(b) provides:
A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to
permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
[6] Professional Conduct Rule 1.16(d) provides:
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the
extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as
giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for the employment of
other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is
entitles and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned.
The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted
by other law.
[7] Professional Conduct Rule 8.1(b) provides:
[A] lawyer . . . in connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not:
(b) . . . knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for
information from an admissions or disciplinary authority . . .
[8] See, e.g., Matter of Radford, 698 N.E.2d 310 (Ind. 1998) (where
attorney failed to appear at hearing of disciplinary matter, the Court did
not have the benefit of explanation or any factors tending to mitigate the
severity of his misconduct).