This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the Petition for Voluntary Discipline of the Respondent, Richard W. Voss. The State Bar and the special master appointed by this Court to conduct an investigation recommend that the Court accept Voss’ Petition. Voss admits violating Standards 22 withdrawal from employment in a proceeding before a tribunal without permission and without taking steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to the rights of his client; 44 wilful abandonment or disregard of a client’s legal matter to the client’s detriment; and 68 failure to respond in accordance with the State Disciplinary Board rules to disciplinary authorities of Bar Rule 4-102 d in connection with his representation of three clients in separate real estate, bankruptcy, and child support matters. In the real estate matter, Voss represented a client in a real estate closing and, as the loan assumption documents had not been received at the time of the closing, agreed to obtain the signature of the property purchaser upon arrival of the documents and to file the documents with the mortgage company. Voss failed to execute or file the documents as promised and when the purchaser was delinquent in making mortgage payments, the mortgage company demanded payment from Voss’ client who was still listed as owner of the property. Voss admits that by his failure to properly follow through on the execution and filing of the loan assumption documents, he violated Standard 44 of Bar Rule 4-102 d.
In the bankruptcy matter, Voss received $675 from a client for attorney and filing fees and filed a bankruptcy petition on behalf of the client. Voss and the client appeared on a scheduled hearing date for a meeting with creditors. However, the case could not be heard on that day and the hearing was not rescheduled. The bankruptcy court subsequently dismissed the client’s case without prejudice for failure to attend a meeting of the creditors. Although the client telephoned Voss repeatedly from October 1996 through March 1997 to inquire about the status of her case, Voss did not return most of her calls, did not effectively communicate with her regarding the status of the case and did not withdraw from the case. The client subsequently filed a grievance against Voss and demanded a refund of Voss’ attorney fees. Voss refunded $500 to the client. Voss admits that he failed to effectively communicate with the client regarding her case and did not withdraw from the case and the client’s case was eventually dismissed by the bankruptcy court. By virtue of this conduct, Voss admits having violated Standards 22 and 44 of Bar Rule 4-102 d.
