This matter is before the Court on the Report of the Review Panel in which it adopts the special master’s conclusion that Respondent Stephen T. Maples violated Standard 44 lawyer shall not without just cause to the detriment of his client in effect wilfully abandon or disregard a legal matter entrusted to him and Standard 68 lawyer shall not fail to respond to disciplinary authorities of Bar Rule 4-102 d, and the recommendation that Maples be suspended for no less than 12 months, after application of Bar Rule 4-103 third or subsequent disciplinary infraction constitutes discretionary grounds for suspension or disbarment.1 The State Bar filed a Formal Complaint against Maples after he failed to timely respond to a Notice of Investigation and he was suspended for almost four months before finally filing a response and having the suspension lifted. See Bar Rule 4-204.3 d. The special master held two hearings in this matter, one for the presentation of evidence and another to consider evidence of aggravation and mitigation. The special master issued a report and recommendation, to which Maples filed an exception and a request for a Review Panel review. The State Bar filed a response and the Review Panel subsequently issued its report adopting, with amendment, the special master’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. Maples filed an exception to that report, and the State Bar filed its response. The matter is now ripe for review by this Court.
The facts show that Maples, who undisputedly is an experienced criminal trial lawyer, was retained in 1995 by the sisters of a convicted criminal defendant to represent their brother on motion for new trial and on appeal. Maples received a total fee of $10,000. He filed the motion for new trial the next month, met with the client and his previous counsel, and reviewed the transcript and forwarded it to the client with a cover letter asking him to call Maples to discuss issues relevant to the appeal. The client never called and Maples never attempted to contact him. Maples concluded in February 1996 that there were no appealable issues and so he decided not to seek an order on the motion for new trial, but to monitor the case law and facts to see if any change therein would give rise to a viable appeal.
