 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Attorney Grievance Commission of v. Dietz8/25/1993
Opinion by Rodowsky, J.
This disciplinary proceeding against an attorney involves neglect of the matters of two separate clients. The underlying cause of the violations was respondent's unwillingness to reject legal employment offered to him.
Respondent, Stanley M. Dietz (Dietz), was born January 21, 1927. He has been a member of the Bar of this Court since May 1958. He also is admitted to practice before the courts of the District of Columbia and before the trial and appellate courts of the United States in Maryland and in the District of Columbia. His practice is primarily the defense of criminal cases. He has maintained an office for the practice of law at various locations in downtown Washington, D.C., and out of his home in Montgomery County, Maryland.
In the first half of 1991 two complaints were filed with Bar Counsel against Dietz by former clients, one by Nikita Jurkevich (Jurkevich) and one by Ona Caine (Caine). When the Attorney Grievance Commission filed a petition for disciplinary action against Dietz in this Court, we referred the matter for hearing to Judge James L. Ryan of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. Judge Ryan has concluded that Dietz violated a number of provisions of the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct. Dietz has not filed any exceptions to Judge Ryan's findings of fact or conclusions of law. Bar Counsel has filed exceptions that ask us to find additional violations in the Caine case.
I
The Jurkevich matter was a personal injury claim. On February 24, 1988, Jurkevich was struck by a motor vehicle when, as a pedestrian, he had been crossing Riva Road in Annapolis. Jurkevich testified before Judge Ryan that he had stepped into Riva Road at an intersection, but he did not recall whether he was within a crosswalk boundary. He remembered nothing further about the accident. The police report reflects that Jurkevich was struck by a northbound vehicle, seventy-five feet south of the nearest intersection.
Jurkevich was hospitalized in a shock trauma unit for three weeks. As a result of the injuries his medical bills were approximately $30,000, and his loss of earned income was approximately $20,000.
Jurkevich initially engaged an attorney practicing in Annapolis to represent him. That attorney-client relationship ended sometime after the attorney had received a letter of October 3, 1988, from the insurer of the motor vehicle, denying the claim. After investigation, the insurer took the position that Jurkevich's failure to yield to vehicular traffic was "the primary causal factor" of the accident. Before Judge Ryan, Jurkevich testified that he and the attorney in Annapolis had "a personality difference" that was "just differences of opinion."
On July 31, 1989, Jurkevich met with Dietz and delivered the file obtained from the Annapolis attorney. Its contents included, at least, medical reports, the police accident report, correspondence, and photographs of Jurkevich taken after the accident. Jurkevich signed a contingent fee retainer agreement form. Jurkevich testified that he and Dietz discussed contributory negligence and the possibility of last clear chance. Under the retainer agreement form, the client bears costs, but Jurkevich made no deposit toward costs. Jurkevich testified that Dietz said that he would "turn over the file, such as it was, to [an associate,] Joe Collier, and he would look into it." Dietz never told Jurkevich that Dietz was not going to take his case or not going to continue with his case.
Dietz's version of the July 31, 1989, meeting differs. Dietz testified that he told Jurkevich that he, Dietz, would decide whether or not to take o
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Maryland DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|