Moore v. Shafran
An attorney can violate Rule 1.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, if the attorney allegedly does not possess the legal knowledge, skill and preparation required to represent his client. In October 2009, Julia Moore hired the respondent attorney, Peter Shafran, to defend her in a civil case. Attorney Shafran filed his appearance in November 2009. He prepared interrogatories for his client to review. Shafran allegedly did not file a response to a December 2009 request to revise. After Shafran met with his client in October 2011, to discuss a motion for default, he allegedly did not file the motion for default or respond to his client's e-mails and phone calls. Allegedly, the attorney did not file an answer to the grievance complaint. The Statewide Grievance Committee found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the respondent attorney was not competent, in violation of Rule 1.1, and was not diligent, in violation of Rule 1.3. The respondent did not keep his client informed about the status of litigation, in violation of Rule 1.4. The respondent did not file an answer to the grievance complaint, in violation of Rule 8.1(2). The Statewide Grievance Committee reprimanded the respondent attorney.