Findings of Fact Complaint of Hassan Abdul-Rahim, Jr. Hassan Abdul-Rahim, Jr. originally retained Respondent[11] in December of 2004 to represent him in the recovery of damages for injuries he claimed to have suffered in November of 2004, while working for United Parcel Service (UPS). In February 2005, while on a hiatus from his work at UPS because of the November 2004 injuries, Rahim grew a beard. When Rahim returned to work at UPS, his supervisor asked him to shave off the beard. He refused, purportedly for religious reasons. Rahim alleged that the work environment became hostile towards him thereafter, pointing to a subsequent change by his employer in his working hours, which, he claimed, constituted religious discrimination. Rahim filed an employment discrimination complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). On 26 August 2005, the EEOC issued a right to sue letter. Rahim gave this letter to Respondent and requested that Respondent file suit on his behalf. According to the findings of fact rendered by Judge Algeo: Respondent instructed his associate, Raymond Jones, Esquire, to prepare the suit. [Rahim] was advised of the status of his case as he spoke with Mr. Jones by telephone on several occasions and he exchanged information with Mr. Jones. [Rahim] spoke with Mr. Jones more than anyone else in the office. Mr. Jones left several messages for the Respondent regarding conversations with [Rahim]. Jones prepared the suit and filed it with the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Southern Division, on 28 November 2005. With regard to this suit, Judge Algeo noted: Respondent contends that [Rahim] understood that he would take no further action in his case after filing the suit. Respondent further contends that he communicated this limitation in a letter to [Rahim] dated November 28, 2005. [Rahim] contends that Respondent was to serve as his counsel throughout the case, and that he never received a letter from the Respondent communicating anything differently. The suit was filed with a signature line for Respondent only. The court issued a summons for UPS on November 30, 2005. The summons stated that the answer to the complaint should be served on Respondent as [Rahims] attorney. On April 10, 2006, Ella S. Peterson, courtroom deputy for the Honorable Peter J. Messitte, sent Respondent a notice stating that he should either file proof of service in the law suit or request an extension of time in which to achieve service. The notice directed Respondent to respond to the inquiry on or before April 24, 2006. Respondent took no action in response to the notice. On April 25, 2006, Complainants case was dismissed without prejudice by Judge Peter J. Messitte as a result of the failure to serve the defendant. Although the case was dismissed without prejudice, the effect of the dismissal was to forever bar [Rahim] from bringing this suit again because pursuant to 42 232*232 U.S.C. � 2000e-5(f)(1) and 42 U.S.C. � 12117, such suits must be filed within ninety days of the issuance of a right to sue letter. On or about 16 May 2006, Rahim and his wife visited Respondent at his office. On the same day, after their meeting, Respondent sent Rahim an e-mail: Dear Hassan: Following up on our meeting today, I shall communicate with you again on May 23, 2006 to give you further update on the two cases we have for you. If you do not hear from me on that date, please call my office immediately. Thanks a lot. EU After receiving no communication from Respondent as promised, Rahim sent him the following e-mail on 26 May 2006: Ephrium [sic], today is Friday may 26, 2006. I have not received the info about my case you promised. This is about the 13th time you told me you would contact me with any info on my case. The only info i have is my case was dismissed without prejudice which I received on my own inquire to the court. I flew to Maryland three times to speak to you without you without receiving any info. Only to receive Empty promises from you to contact me and forward me info pertaining to my case. You wonder why would Hassan have suspicions. I have called your office three times since may 23 and you cell phone once with no response from you. -Hassan Abdul Rahim, Jr. On 30 May 2006, Rahim sent Ugwuonye another e-mail: Dear Ephriam Today is Tuesday, May 30, 2006, I still have not received any word from you or your assistants about the status of my case. This is a very stressful situation! I do realize cases like this take time but the courts are reporting my case as being dismissed without prejudice which proves that when you tell me everything is OK and your working on my case its not true! it is the same as when you promised me a phone call or report of the status of my case you are lying to me! Every time i call your office i am told that you are in Africa on a case or working with an important client! So i guess i am not a client worth the respect i deserve. I was promised to receive some info on may 23 2006 by you about my case once again i waited patiently and received nothing. Ive called your office four times since then and was told you were not avail and leave a message, no response to this day. What is a man to do? Any Advice? Hassan Abdul-Rahim, Jr. Following Rahims failed e-mail attempts to elicit a response from Respondent, Rahim sent a letter on 8 June 2006 terminating Respondents services and asked him to have the client file ready for pick-up on 23 June 2006. On 20 June 2006, Respondent sent a letter to Rahim conveying an offer for $5,600.00 from Liberty Mutual Insurance, on behalf of UPS, for settlement of his claim. Two days later, on 22 June 2006, Rahim sent a reply to Respondent commanding that he cease and desist all actions on his behalf. This letter stated that Rahim previously was notified of, and rejected, the settlement offer from Liberty Mutual, and expressed doubt as to the authenticity of the current settlement offer. The doubt stemmed from Respondents continuing failure to communicate with Rahim and his general neglect of the case. Conclusions of Law Complaint of Hassan Abdul-Rahim, Jr. Based on the finding of facts with respect to the complaint of Hassan Abdul-Rahim, Jr., the hearing judge concluded that Respondent violated MRPC 1.1. During the early stages of the Respondents representation, Mr. Rahim maintained contact with Mr. Jones in the Respondents office, who kept him aware of the status of his discrimination case. This contact continued at least until February 2006, when Mr. Jones left the Respondents office. The letter dated November 28, 2005, served to advise Mr. Rahim of the status of the case and his responsibilities as a litigant. Although Respondent claims that Mr. Rahim understood that he would no longer be representing him after filing the complaint, the Respondent never withdrew from the case and was counsel of record from the time the complaint was filed until the case was dismissed. Further, the Respondent acknowledged in a meeting with Mr. Rahim, months later in May of 2006, that he was handling two cases for Mr. Rahim, including the claim filed in November 2005. In the months following the filing of the complaint, the Respondent received notices from the court requesting a response in order to avoid dismissal. Respondent made no effort to respond to these notices or inform Complainant of his need to respond. Respondents inability to officially remove himself from the case, as well as, communicate correspondence from the Court to Mr. Rahim, displayed a lack of competence in his representation. For these reasons, the Court finds that the Respondent is in violation of Rule 1.1. The hearing judge also concluded that Respondent violated MRPC 1.3. Although Respondent was diligent in initially filing the complaint . . . his failure to respond to subsequent notices from the court, and or communicate those notices to [Rahim], formed the basis for his violation. The hearing judge concluded that MRPC 1.4 was violated because Respondent failed to comply with reasonable requests 235*235 for information and displayed an overall lack of communication with his client. Lastly, the hearing judge concluded that MRPC 8.4(d) was violated by Respondent because Respondents failure to take any action in response to the notice of April 10, 2006 displays a lack of both competence and diligence. The notice advised the Respondent that Complainants case would be dismissed unless he provided proof of service or requested an extension of time on or before April 25, 2006. Respondent took no action in response to the notice and as a result his clients case was dismissed. Contrary to what Respondent may have tried to communicate to Mr. Rahim back in November of 2005, Respondent never moved to withdraw from the case and was counsel of record from the time the lawsuit was filed until it was dismissed.
Posted on: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 07:31:17 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015