Bauer v. Stratton
An attorney who allegedly fails to meet deadlines is not diligent, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. A local grievance panel found probable cause that the respondent attorney violated Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5(b) and 8.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The respondent attorney, Christopher Stratton, was admitted to the bar of the State of Connecticut in May 2002 and has no prior history of discipline. The respondent attorney waived his right to a full evidentiary hearing and admitted that he did not meet deadlines and did not provide his client a written fee contract, in violation of Rules 1.3 and 1.5(b) of the Rules. The respondent wrote, "I admit that I did not timely answer the grievance complaint; I did not provide the complainant a written fee agreement and I did not diligently meet deadlines or client communication." The Statewide Grievance Committee ordered the respondent attorney to pay restitution in the amount of $506 and to take continuing legal education courses in ethics and trusts and estates.