These three disciplinary matters are before the Court pursuant to the consolidated Report and Recommendation “R&R” of a special master who was appointed following the filing of Formal Complaints by the State Bar on three separate disciplinary matters, each of which involved abandonment of a client’s legal matter. The Formal Complaints alleged, and the special master found, that Bailey repeatedly violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, and 9.3 of Bar Rule 4-102 d and that, in one case, Bailey also violated Rule 1.15 I of Bar Rule 4-102 d. A violation of Rule 1.3 or 1.15 I may be punished by disbarment, while a violation of Rule 1.4 or 9.3 may be punished by public reprimand. The special master recommends that disbarment is the appropriate sanction for Bailey’s violations. We agree. Despite being personally served with the Formal Complaints, Bailey, who has been a member of the Bar since 1986, failed to respond timely and the facts described below are deemed admitted under Bar Rule 4-212 a.
In Case No. S03Y1653, Bailey agreed to defend a client in a criminal charge and accepted two rare coins from the client for use as demonstrative evidence in the case. After a jury convicted the client in November 2001, Bailey agreed to continue his representation of the client. Although Bailey filed a motion for new trial, he failed to inform his client of this action and made no effort to schedule a hearing on the motion; to order a transcript of the trial; or to respond to the client’s numerous written and telephonic inquiries about the status of his case. Eventually, the trial court ordered replacement counsel for the client but Bailey now claims to be unable to find the client’s rare coins. Based on these admitted facts, the special master found that Bailey had violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.15 I, and 9.3.
