 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Fandey11/7/1994
t Fandey reply to the request for supplemental information, however, Fandey failed to provide any response.
The foregoing allegations arising from Fandey's representation of Wilma Krieger were contained in the specification of charges. Fandey agreed not to contest the allegations that his conduct in regard to his representation of Krieger violated Rules 16-101, 16-102(A), 16-103, 16-104(A), 16-116(D), 16-804(D), and 16-804(H). Additionally, Fandey agreed not to contest allegations that, by failing to cooperate with disciplinary counsel in the discharge of their duties, he violated Rule 16-803(D).
On or about January 15, 1992, the respondent was retained to represent Joseph P. and Eleanor H. Sandoval in a case involving a real estate transaction. The Sandovals paid Fandey approximately $600 for the representation. The Sandovals subsequently attempted to contact Fandey, however, Fandey did not return their calls. The Sandovals later determined that Fandey's phone was disconnected and that his law office had been closed.
Fandey did enter an appearance on behalf of the Sandovals on January 21, 1992. On April 14, 1992, a notice of hearing was sent to Fandey at the address he provided to the court, however, Fandey failed to appear at a hearing set for June 2, 1992. At the hearing, the Sandovals appeared without representation and advised the court that they were abandoned by Fandey after paying for his services.
The Sandovals subsequently filed a disciplinary complaint as did the district Judge presiding over the litigation. Fandey was notified by mail regarding the Sandoval complaint as well as the complaint filed by the Judge, however, Fandey did not respond to either complaint. Subsequently on July 2, 1992, and again on December 3, 1992, Fandey was notified of the complaints by certified mail and asked to provide responses to both complaints. No response was received from Fandey.
As part of the agreement not to contest and consent to discipline, Fandey agreed not to contest the allegations contained in the specification of charges that his conduct during his representation of the Sandovals violated Rules 16-101, 16-102(A), 16-103, 16-104(A), 16-116(D), 16-804(D) and 16-804(H). Additionally, Fandey agreed not to contest allegations that, by failing to respond to the disciplinary complaints filed by the Sandovals and the district court Judge, he violated Rule 16-803(D) by failing to cooperate with disciplinary counsel in the discharge of their duties.
Prior to being admitted to practice law in New Mexico, Fandey was admitted to practice law in California. On March 26, 1990, a disciplinary complaint was filed in New Mexico by Bruce W. Lee, one of Fandey's California clients. At approximately the same time, Lee also filed a similar disciplinary complaint against Fandey with the State Bar of California. Due to the fact that the conduct alleged in the Lee complaint occurred in California, the investigation of Lee's New Mexico disciplinary complaint was held in abeyance pending the outcome of the California disciplinary proceeding. As part of Fandey's conditional agreement not to contest and consent to discipline, he acknowledged that he was the subject of a disciplinary matter in California styled In the Matter of Henry Daniel Fandey, Case No. SBC 90-0-11973-CEV, wherein he was found to have violated the Rules of Professional Conduct in his representation of Lee by aiding and abetting Lee's flight from California in order to avoid complying with a child support order.
At the same time that Fandey entered into the agreement not to contest and consent to discipline in New Mexico, his California disciplinary case was appealed to the State
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 New Mexico Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|