A lawyer who is not diligent violates Rule 1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. William Lukas filed a grievance complaint, and a local grievance panel found probable cause that the respondent violated Rule 1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Disciplinary counsel dismissed allegations that the respondent attorney was not competent, in violation of Rule 1.1. Allegedly, the respondent attorney failed to ensure that employees sent documents timely, and that his associate attended a hearing. The respondent, Jason McCoy, was admitted to the bar of the State of Connecticut in 1998 and previously received conditions in a disciplinary matter in 2009. The respondent attorney waived his right to a full evidentiary hearing and wrote, "Although I deny some or all of the material facts alleged in the complaint, I acknowledge that there is sufficient evidence to prove by clear and convincing evidence the material facts constituting a violation of Rule 1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct with regard to my representation of the complainant in his chapter 13 proceeding." The Statewide Grievance Committee reprimanded the respondent attorney.

VIEW FULL CASE