Imundo v. Garver
An attorney who allegedly does not promptly file a client's bankruptcy petition is not diligent, in violation of Rule 1.3. In May 2012, Michael Imundo hired the respondent attorney, Scott Garver of Waterbury, to represent him in his bankruptcy. Imundo allegedly informed Garver that he planned to leave on an extended vacation in July, and that he would like the bankruptcy matter handled promptly. On May 9, Imundo paid the respondent $700. On July 5, the respondent's paralegal requested additional information from Imundo, and Imundo answered promptly. Allegedly, the respondent attorney failed to file the bankruptcy petition. Imundo filed a grievance complaint, and the respondent attorney returned the $700 in November 2012. Rule 1.3 provides, "A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." The Statewide Grievance Committee found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the respondent attorney was not diligent, in violation of Rule 1.3, because he did not file the bankruptcy petition promptly. "The Respondent," wrote the Statewide Grievance Committee, "failed to act with reasonable diligence in representing the Complainant in violation of Rule 1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition or to take any action to advance the Complainant's bankruptcy petition." The Statewide Grievance Committee reprimanded the respondent attorney.