Online Records Used To Uncover Neglect

The availability of online information led to a client’s discovery that his attorney had neglected his case.

Respondent represented Client in a tort action against the City of Hammond. After the case was removed from state to federal court, Respondent failed: (1) to serve initial disclosures as required under federal rules of procedure; (2) to respond to discovery requests; (3) to respond to an order compelling discovery; (4) to pay attorney fees awarded to the defendants; (5) to respond to the defendants’ motion for sanctions; and (6) to appear at the hearing on the motion for sanctions. The federal court granted the defendants’ motion for sanctions and dismissed the tort action with prejudice. Respondent failed to apprise Client of the status of the case or respond to Client’s requests for information.

Client eventually learned of the case disposition from his daughter, who looked it up online

The Indiana Supreme Court accepted a consented-to public reprimand. (Mike Frisch)