An attorney who allegedly is suspended from the practice of law, after he is hired, and who does not finish more than 50 percent of his client's work violates Rule 1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The complainant, Sherry DiMauro, hired the respondent attorney, Kevin Farrell, to represent her with respect to a loan modification, and paid Farrell $1,000. Allegedly, the respondent attorney was suspended less than a month after he was hired, and continued to hold himself out as an attorney and to work on the complainant's case. About four months after he was hired, the respondent allegedly stopped working on the complainant's case. The respondent testified that he was not guilty of engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, because individuals who have not been admitted to the practice of law are permitted to work on loan modifications. The Statewide Grievance Committee found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the respondent violated Rule 1.3, because he did not finish more than 50 percent of his work for his client. The respondent did not communicate adequately, in violation of Rule 1.4, because he did not inform his client about his suspension from the practice of law or that he had not completed her legal work. The respondent charged an unreasonable fee, in violation of Rule 1.5, because he did not finish more than 50 percent of his client's work. The respondent continued to hold himself out as a lawyer after his suspension, in violation of Rule 5.5, which bars the unauthorized practice of law. The respondent failed to inform his client in writing when he ceased to represent her, in violation of Rule 1.16(d). The Statewide Grievance Committee ordered the respondent's presentment to Superior Court for discipline. 

VIEW FULL CASE