 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Disciplinary Matter Involving Hanlon4/15/2005
of her case and didn't always return her telephone calls or do so in a timely manner." But he claimed that he "did make several efforts . . . over the more than two years I had this claim to resolve Ms. Rednall's claim and am glad to report that we did resolve the claim."
On November 25, 1996 the bar responded to Hanlon's letters, stating that although Rednall had expressed a desire to dismiss her grievance against him, "the nature of her complaints, and your response, suggest that additional information is necessary." The bar noted Hanlon's vague references to a "claim" and "settlement," and Rednall's belief that the state had settled with her, but stated that it had checked the relevant court records and "it appears that there was no claim" against either the state or any of its employees. The bar voiced its "concern that you represented to [Rednall] that you had settled her case when, in fact, you furnished the funds yourself in order to prevent further action against you," and accordingly gave Hanlon twenty days to furnish his complete files on the Rednall matter, as well as an explanation of the claim, the name of any opposing counsel, copies of any settlement checks and disbursement documents, and his final bill and fee calculation.
In response to the bar's ultimatum, Hanlon's attorney furnished Hanlon's Rednall files to the bar on January 3, 1997. Hanlon's attorney admitted that " o case was ever filed against any party," that " here was no attorney on the other side of the 'case' and no 'settlement check' was received from another source," that " he Compromise and Release was prepared solely by James Hanlon," and that all funds paid to Rednall came from Hanlon. Hanlon's attorney admitted that "settlement of the case was undertaken by James Hanlon in order to avoid a claim of malpractice based on delay and to provide his client with some recovery for her claim."
B. Proceedings
On December 14, 2001 Bar Counsel petitioned the bar's local Area Hearing Committee ("the committee") to conduct a formal hearing on the allegations against Hanlon, and to recommend an appropriate disciplinary action to the bar's Disciplinary Board ("the board").
Hanlon submitted an answer to the bar's petition. In response to the Martin-related allegations, Hanlon admitted that he had represented Martin and failed to move for withdrawal from representation following Martin's grievance against him, but denied that Martin had believed that his divorce was final. Hanlon denied that he had acted with neglect on the Martin case, and insisted that he had no ability to, or was prohibited from concluding Martin's divorce, as it would have been "a breach of professional conduct" to "proceed on behalf of a client who had filed a grievance against him for not adequately representing his interest." Hanlon further denied that his actions or omissions caused Martin any distress, embarrassment, or inconvenience. Additionally, Hanlon argued that the Martin grievance was barred by a five-year statute of limitations under Alaska Bar Rule 18.
Responding to the Rednall-related allegations, Hanlon admitted that he had represented Rednall in her personal injury claim, and that she had filed an earlier grievance against him for neglecting her claim and failing to respond to her inquiries about the claim. Hanlon also acknowledged his July 12 and October 24, 1996 letters to the bar. But Hanlon denied that they had "confirmed the validity" of Rednall's charges. Hanlon also denied the bar's claims that "he never filed any claim" on Rednall's behalf, that " y the time Rednall filed her grievance, the statutory limitation periods on [Rednall's] civil claims had expired," and that Hanlon had
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Alaska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|