 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Williamson9/7/1994
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
Per Curiam.
This matter came before the Court following disciplinary proceedings conducted pursuant to the Rules Governing Discipline, SCRA 1986, 17-101 to 17-316 (Repl. Pamp. 1991 and Cum. Supp. 1994). Glen R. Williamson, in accordance with an agreement not to contest and consent to discipline reached pursuant to Rule 17-211(A), does not contest the allegations that he committed various violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, SCRA 1986, 16-101 to 16-805 (Repl. Pamp. 1991 and Cum. Supp. 1994). Pursuant to Rule 17-211(B)(1)(a), we approve and adopt the disciplinary board's acceptance of Williamson's consent to discipline and impose a period of probation.
On or about April 14, 1992, Randy Jahn retained Williamson to represent him on an appeal following the revocation of Jahn's driver's license by the New Mexico Department of Motor Vehicles. Jahn paid Williamson $1,333.50 for this representation. Subsequently, Jahn attempted to contact Williamson by telephone and through correspondence. Williamson did not respond to Jahn's efforts to obtain information regarding the status of the appeal, nor did Williamson take any action on behalf of the client. Subsequently, Jahn submitted a disciplinary complaint to the Disciplinary Board. Disciplinary counsel was unsuccessful in attempts to obtain a response to the Jahn complaint from Williamson. The foregoing allegations were contained in the amended specification of charges and Williamson agreed not to contest said allegations that his conduct violated SCRA 1986, 16-101, 16-102, 16-103, 16-104(A), 16-105(A), 16-115(B), 16-116(D), 16-803(D), 16-804(D), and 16-804(H).
On or about April 26, 1989, Williamson agreed to represent David Bolm with regard to a personal injury case. Williamson filed a lawsuit on behalf of Bolm. Thereafter, Williamson failed to take the necessary steps to pursue the litigation on behalf of Bolm. The district court subsequently notified Williamson that the lawsuit would be dismissed for lack of activity after a period of six months. A second court notice advised Williamson that the Bolm lawsuit would be dismissed for lack of prosecution after a period of six months. On or about November 18, 1991, the district court entered an order dismissing the case for lack of activity. During the course of the representation, Bolm attempted to contact Williamson in order to determine the status of the case. Williamson failed to return telephone calls and was not available for consultation when requested by the client.
The allegations arising from Williamson's representation of Bolm were contained in the amended specification of charges. Williamson agreed not to contest allegations that his conduct in regard to his representation of Bolm violated SCRA 1986, 16-101, 16-102, 16-103, 16-104(A), 16-804(D), and 16-804(H).
On or about November 28, 1989, Percy Gonzales retained Williamson to represent him regarding injuries received in an accident that occurred at the Central New Mexico Correctional Facility at Los Lunas. Williamson subsequently filed a lawsuit on behalf of Gonzales. Thereafter, Williamson took no further action on behalf of Gonzales and failed to take necessary steps to pursue the litigation. The district court subsequently entered an orde
Page 1 2 3 New Mexico Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|