Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Todd and Elizabeth were having marital problems. Todd approached D and told him that he and his wife were undergoing a 'Gestalt' method of therapy. He asked D to create a fictitious set of divorce documents to 'shock' his wife as prescribed by the therapy. According to this method, Elizabeth would be 'shocked' into mending the marriage upon seeing the fictitious documents. D drafted a Summons and Complaint titled Elizabeth Stenzel Hunnicutt v. A. Todd Hunnicutt. The documents bore a fictitious docket number with the last three digits handwritten, a fictitious filing stamp for the Clerk of Court of Newberry County, and the signature of 'Mark J. Taylor,' as D purported to be. D drafted documents that appeared authentic. They included a Consent Order to Change Venue from Newberry to Lexington County. D signed the names 'Mark J. Taylor' and 'Warren Powell.' He also signed 'J. M. Rucker' in the block designated 'presiding judge.' D drafted a letter on his letterhead, which purported to be written to Taylor, indicating that he, D, was now representing Todd in the divorce. D prepared a false 'Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production.' He signed his assistant's name to the certificate of mailing, purporting proper service of the Interrogatories. He then drafted a fictitious Request for Hearing form, bearing 'Mark J. Taylor' as counsel for Ms. Hunnicutt. D then prepared a handwritten letter on his letterhead addressed to 'Todd' and attached a fictitious settlement agreement bearing the false docket numbers. D gave the documents to Todd. Elizabeth found the documents in the trunk of Todd's car and was confused because she had not initiated the divorce action as suggested in the documents. She faxed the documents to a cousin in Missouri. The Missouri attorney confirmed that the documents appeared authentic and that a divorce action appeared to be underway. The Missouri attorney contacted Taylor and Judge Rucker, who knew nothing about the matter. They contacted the Commission on Lawyer Conduct. Formal charges were issued.
Jennifer hired D to increase child support payments from her former husband. Mark who was represented by Young counterclaimed for additional visitation with the couple's son. D told Jennifer that a hearing would take place on June 29, 1998. The clerk sent D a Notice of Hearing indicating that the hearing had been set for June 23, 1998. D failed to inform Jennifer. Jennifer and D were not present at the June 23 hearing. After the June 23 hearing, Young called and offered to settle the case. D was unaware that he had missed the hearing. Young made an offer that would increase visitation rights for Mark and increase child support for Jennifer. D was unable to reach Jennifer but called Young and accepted the offer to settle. On June 26, 1998, Mark called to ask Jennifer when he could pick up their son. She contacted D to find out about the status of her case. D assured her that he would call the court to find out the results of the hearing. D admitted to missing the hearing date and encouraged her to agree to the terms of the proposed settlement. Jennifer refused to consent to the proposed settlement. She went to D's office to retrieve her file. The file contained a copy of the settlement agreement that she never signed. Young filed a Motion to Compel Settlement. D received a copy of this Motion and informed Jennifer that a hearing on the Motion was set for September 4, 1998. On August 4, 1998, D filed a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel in the case. Jennifer was never informed. Jennifer learned of D's motion from the judge. She agreed to find another counsel. Judge Sawyer issued an Order granting Young's Motion to Compel Settlement but ruled that the issues of reasonableness and fairness would be heard de novo on November 17, 1998. Lester represented Jennifer and got a deal more advantageous to her. Lester’s fees totaled $7,000.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co