Summary
The Rhode Island Supreme Court indefinitely suspended Joseph A. Cozzolino from the practice of law. The court found violations involving lack of diligence, inadequate client communication, and failure to respond to disciplinary authorities, and noted his extensive disciplinary history.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether respondent violated the professional-conduct rules requiring diligence and promptness, reasonable client communication, and responses to lawful demands from a disciplinary authority.
- What disciplinary sanction was appropriate for the violations in light of respondent's prior disciplinary history and the circumstances of the case.
- What conditions should govern any future application for reinstatement.
Holdings
- Respondent violated Article V, Rules 1.3 and 1.4(b) of the Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to provide the Maddens with the documents to which they were entitled and by failing to communicate with them adequately.
- Respondent violated Article V, Rule 8.1(b) by knowingly failing to respond to lawful demands for information from the Disciplinary Board.
- An indefinite suspension from the practice of law was warranted to protect the public.
- The court would not consider an application for reinstatement until all pending disciplinary matters were resolved, and respondent would bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he was fit to resume practice.
Key quotations
“Our review of the facts of this case and the respondent’s past dealings with the board lead us to conclude that the public can be best protected by his indefinite suspension from the practice of law.” (893)
“It shall be the respondent’s burden to persuade this Court by clear and convincing evidence that he is fit to resume the practice of law, should he seek reinstatement.” (893)
Factual background
The Maddens retained Cozzolino in July 1998 to prepare documents necessary to sell their mobile home and paid his fee, but he did not provide the documents. He also failed to return numerous telephone calls seeking resolution of the matter. Cozzolino twice failed to respond to the Disciplinary Board's requests for an answer and had an extensive prior disciplinary history, including eight admonishments and three letters of reprimand.
Procedural history
The Maddens filed a disciplinary complaint alleging that Cozzolino failed to prepare documents, failed to communicate, and failed to respond to the disciplinary authorities. After the Board sought and obtained an order compelling an answer, Cozzolino answered and a hearing on the substantive charges was held. The Board found violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4(b), and 8.1(b), recommended suspension, and the Supreme Court imposed an indefinite suspension after reviewing the record and respondent's representations.