Preview:

04/02/04 "See News Release 032 for any concurrences and/or dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 03-B-2902 IN RE: JAMES E. KURZWEG ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from one count of formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") against respondent, James E. Kurzweg, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana, but currently ineligible to practice.1

FORMAL CHARGES In March 1991, Ursula and Ralph Holmes retained respondent's law firm to represent them in a personal injury matter. In January 1992, respondent filed a petition for damages on behalf of his clients, but thereafter he did nothing further in connection with the matter. Moreover, for a period of several years, neither

respondent nor his law partner, who also worked on the clients' file, communicated with Mr. and Mrs. Holmes regarding their case. In November 1999, the trial court dismissed the Holmes' suit as abandoned due to respondent's failure to take any steps in the prosecution of the case. Respondent did not advise his clients of his inaction or the dismissal of their case by the court. In June 2000, Mrs. Holmes filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC. Respondent failed to reply to the complaint, necessitating the issuance of a subpoena to compel his response. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
Respondent has been ineligible to practice law since August 1992 for failure to comply with the mandatory continuing legal education requirement; since January 1994 for failure to pay the disciplinary assessment; and since September 1995 for failure to pay his bar dues.
1

On August 23, 2002, the ODC filed one count of formal charges against respondent, alleging that his conduct violated the following provisions of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.2 (scope of the representation), 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client), 3.2 (failure to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation), 8.1(b) (knowing failure to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority), 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation), 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct), and 8.4(g) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation).2 Respondent failed to answer or otherwise reply to the formal charges. Accordingly, the factual allegations contained therein were deemed admitted and proven by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX,

Download 2003-B-2902 IN RE: JAMES E. KURZWEG.pdf

Louisiana Law