In re the Matter of Discipline of Michael P. Reynolds

Summary

The Supreme Court of South Dakota imposed a three-year suspension from the practice of law on Michael P. Reynolds. The court found that Reynolds neglected client matters, failed to communicate, allowed a statute of limitations to expire, engaged in undisclosed conflicts of interest, violated agreements with the Disciplinary Board, and failed to respond to disciplinary proceedings. Following the suspension, Reynolds may petition for reinstatement.

Holdings

1. The Supreme Court independently determines the appropriate discipline, giving careful consideration to the Disciplinary Board's factual findings but not deferring to its recommended sanction.
2. An attorney's obligation to maintain good moral character is continuing and includes diligence, reliability, fiduciary responsibility, respect for others' rights, and respect for the judicial process; repeated neglect, failure to communicate, conflicts of interest, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities constitute grounds for discipline.
3. The paramount purpose of attorney discipline is protection of the public, not punishment of the attorney, and the Court must not balance potential rehabilitation against the duty to protect the public.
4. A three-year suspension from the practice of law, effective immediately, was the appropriate sanction; Reynolds could petition for reinstatement only after satisfying specified conditions, and failure to satisfy the conditions would result in permanent disbarment.
5. When an accused attorney fails to answer a formal accusation within the thirty-day period prescribed by SDCL 16-19-68, the Court may proceed to render the judgment required by the case.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Reynolds violated the South Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct and statutory disciplinary requirements through neglect, inadequate communication, conflicts of interest, misconduct, and failure to cooperate with the Disciplinary Board.
2. Whether Reynolds violated the terms of the Private 60 Agreements by failing to comply with reporting, mentoring, practice-limitation, and client-withdrawal requirements.
3. What sanction was necessary to protect the public and address Reynolds's repeated misconduct.
4. Whether Reynolds's failure to answer the formal accusation required the Court to proceed without an answer under SDCL 16-19-68.

Disposition

other