Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
In re Grochowski
Citations: 735 A.2d 201; 1999 R.I. LEXIS 174; 1999 WL 681554Docket: No. 99-280-MP
Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island; August 19, 1999; Rhode Island; State Supreme Court
Thomas M. Grochowski is recommended for a two-year suspension from practicing law by the Supreme Court Disciplinary Board due to multiple violations of professional conduct rules. The case arose from two consolidated complaints from Grochowski's clients. In the first complaint, Southchay Keomorokot retained Grochowski in 1992 for business incorporation services. After Keomorokot hired new counsel in 1996, Grochowski failed to respond to multiple requests for the return of client files, prompting Keomorokot to file a complaint with the Court’s Disciplinary Counsel. Despite efforts by counsel to obtain a response, Grochowski remained unresponsive until compelled to answer by the Court. Ultimately, he admitted at the disciplinary hearing that he had no records pertaining to Keomorokot or the corporation. The board found that Grochowski violated several rules, including Article V, Rules 1.31, 1.4(a), and 1.17(d), as well as Rule 8.1(b) for not responding to counsel's requests. The second complaint involved Grochowski's role as a settlement agent for Milford Federal Savings and Loan Association. Milford requested corrections to four closing files, but Grochowski failed to act or communicate, leading Milford to file a complaint. He only responded after being compelled by a petition from counsel, stating he could not locate the files for correction. The board concluded that Grochowski violated his obligations to Milford under Rules 1.8, 1.4(a), and 1.17(d), as well as his duty to respond to disciplinary counsel under Rule 8.1(b). The respondent, Thomas M. Grochowski, appeared in court to present mitigating facts regarding complaints against him. The court accepted the board's findings and conclusions concerning disciplinary rules. In deciding on an appropriate sanction, the court considered Grochowski's conduct and his prior disciplinary record, which includes a three-month suspension for neglecting client matters (In the Matter of Grochowski, 687 A.2d 77) and a fifteen-month suspension for neglect and dishonesty (In the Matter of Grochowski, 701 A.2d 1013). Given this history and his failure to comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct, the board's recommendation was deemed suitable. Consequently, Grochowski is suspended from practicing law for two years, effective upon the filing of this opinion. He may apply for reinstatement after the suspension period in accordance with Article III, Rule 16 of the Supreme Court Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Justice Flanders did not participate in this decision. Relevant rules include Article V, Rule 1.3, which mandates that a lawyer must act with diligence and keep clients informed, and Rule 8.1(b), which prohibits a lawyer from failing to respond to lawful demands for information from relevant authorities.