 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Joyner v. Commission For Lawyer Discipline3/26/2003
The Commission for Lawyer Discipline brought this disciplinary action against Roger Joyner, alleging violations of multiple provisions of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. Following a non-jury trial, the trial court granted a judgment of partially probated suspension against Joyner. On appeal to this Court, Joyner contends in three issues that the judgment of the trial court was not supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Betty Madge Mills was injured on November 5, 1994. In June 1995, she employed Joyner to pursue a negligence claim arising from the injury. Joyner filed the lawsuit on November 6, 1996. Joyner received interrogatories and requests for production regarding the case in January 1997 but did not answer them. Also in January 1997, counsel for one of the defendants, Farmers Electric Co- op, informed Joyner that suit had been filed two years and one day after the injury occurred and, therefore, he would be filing a motion for summary judgment on limitations grounds. Joyner nonsuited Farmers Electric Co-op. In August or September 1997, Joyner associated Lyle Medlock on the case, and Medlock brought in Craig Bonham shortly thereafter. In November 1997, William E. Reid, counsel for three other defendants, sent Joyner a motion for summary judgment on limitations grounds and notice of the hearing on the motion. No response to the motion was filed, and no one appeared on Mills's behalf at the hearing. The trial court granted summary judgment against Mills on December 19, 1997. No postjudgment motions were filed, and no appeal was filed on Mills's behalf.
The Commission alleged a cause of action against Joyner on behalf of Mills. The Commission alleged that Mills employed Joyner to represent her in a personal injury matter and that Joyner filed the lawsuit one day after the statute of limitations had run, failed to respond to a motion for summary judgment on limitations grounds, failed to file a motion for new trial or perfect an appeal on Mills's behalf, failed to communicate with Mills about the case, and failed to respond to Mills's requests to return her file. The Commission alleged that Joyner violated several disciplinary rules, including rule 1.01(a) and rule 1.01(b)(1).
The trial court found that Joyner violated rule 1.01 in the matter relating to Mills, and that, as to each violation, Joyner committed professional misconduct as defined in rule 1.06 of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. The trial court then imposed sanctions that included a suspension for sixty months, with a two-month active suspension and a five-year probated suspension, subject to various terms and conditions. The court also ordered Joyner to pay $16,316.90 in attorney's fees, expenses, and costs. No findings of fact and conclusions of law were requested or filed. Joyner's motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law. Joyner appealed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW AND APPLICABLE LAW
In a non-jury trial, when no findings of fact or conclusions of law are filed or requested, it will be implied that the trial court made all the necessary findings to support its judgment. Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80, 83 (Tex. 1992). When, as here, a reporter's record is brought forward, these implied findings may be challenged by factual or legal sufficiency points. Id. In reviewing a legal sufficiency question, we must view the evidence in a light that tends to support the finding of the disputed fact and disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. Bradford v. Vento, 48 S.W.3d 749, 754 (Tex. 2001); Heine, 835 S.W.2d at 83. If there is more than a sci
Page 1 2 3 4 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|