Opinion No. 68-208 (1968) Ag

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that “an attorney violate[s] rule 32:1.3 when he fail[s] to appear for a client’s pretrial conference”
• noting that the attorney did not inform his client of an upcoming pretrial conference for a divorce case
• holding the attorney failed to keep his client updated about the status of the client's dissolution and made misrepresentations about the filing status of the petition and service of process on the client's spouse
• finding a violation of rule 32:1.15(d) and rule 45.2(2) because the attorney failed to promptly refund a client’s payment toward the retainer fee after the client terminated the attorney–client relationship and requested a refund
• finding the attorney violated rule 32:1.4(a)(4) for lying to his client that he had filed the petition when the client asked for an update and for continuing to mislead her by blaming the delay on the process server
• considering the attorney's testimony that his mother was in and out of the hospital, his car broke down during that time, he had issues with city inspectors and his apartment, and he was working on other time-consuming cases

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).