In re Prado Galarza
195 P.R. Dec. 894
Supreme Court of Puerto Rico2016Background
- Complainant Madeline Gotay Marcano alleged attorneys Arturo L. Dávila Toro and Irvin E. Prado Galarza provided inadequate representation for her sons’ criminal appeals and sought refund of fees and discipline. Gotay paid $1,000 to Dávila Toro and $2,000 to Prado Galarza for appellate work; she later paid an additional $5,000 to another lawyer who finished the appeal work.
- Prado Galarza filed the notice of appeal but repeatedly failed to comply with intermediate‑court orders to file the trial transcript and appellant brief, producing long delays and attracting court sanctions; mail issues and office changes were invoked as explanations.
- The Office of the Solicitor General investigated and the Court charged Prado Galarza with violating multiple Ethics Code canons (including Canons 9, 12, 18, 19, 20, 23, 35, 38) for dilatory conduct, poor client communication, retaining unearned fees, misstatements, and failing to respond promptly to disciplinary process orders.
- A Special Commissioner recommended dismissal of the grievance but urged returning $1,000; the Solicitor General objected and sought discipline. The Supreme Court reviewed the record and the Commissioner’s findings.
- The Court found Prado Galarza culpable: he delayed appellate processing, did not keep the client informed (delegated communications), retained $1,500 (found in record) for services not completed, and failed to timely respond to the disciplinary petition.
- Sanction: two‑month suspension from the practice of law and notary public, order to reimburse Gotay Marcano $1,000, notification duties to clients and courts, turnover of notarial work for inspection; a concurring opinion would have suspended six months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Prado caused undue delay in appellate prosecution (Canon 12) | Prado’s delays and repeated failure to file transcript/brief prejudiced clients | Mail/office administration errors and client (Gotay) prepared transcript; workload required adding counsel | Held: Violated Canon 12 — delays and disobedience to court orders established |
| Whether Prado failed to represent client diligently (Canon 18) | Failure to perfect appeal and prolonged inaction showed indifference and risked dismissal | Argued he participated in case stages and later joined co‑counsel to finish work | Held: Violated Canon 18 — conduct exposed client to risk and lacked diligence |
| Whether Prado failed to keep client informed (Canon 19) | Prado delegated communications to co‑counsel and did not inform client of appellate steps | Claimed communications occurred through lead counsel and there was nothing new to report | Held: Violated Canon 19 — duty to inform is unidirectional and nondelegable |
| Whether Prado retained unearned fees and misrepresented facts (Canons 20, 23, 35) | Retained fees for appellate work not performed; misstated who intervened to finish appeal | Claimed he and Dávila Toro agreed to add González Pereira due to workload; mail issues hindered response | Held: Violated Canons 20/23 (must refund unperformed fees) and Canon 35 (made false statement about who initiated co‑counsel) |
| Whether Prado failed to comply with disciplinary orders (Canon 9) | Delay in filing answer to disciplinary charge obstructed process | No persuasive justification for long delay in responding | Held: Violated Canon 9 — untimely response delayed the disciplinary proceeding |
| Appropriate sanction | Solicitor General sought discipline and restitution | Prado denied culpability; no demonstrated remorse | Held: Two‑month suspension, $1,000 reimbursement; concurrence favored six months |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Pujol Thompson, 171 DPR 683 (discusses public interest and lawyer obligations)
- In re Nieves Nieves, 181 DPR 25 (Canon 12: undue delays and disobedience to court orders justify discipline)
- In re Rivera Ramos, 178 DPR 651 (Canon 18: duty to represent clients diligently)
- In re Mulero Fernández, 174 DPR 18 (Canon 19: unidirectional duty to inform client)
- In re Pestaña Segovia, 192 DPR 485 (Canons 20/23: refund of unearned fees required)
- In re Iglesias García, 183 DPR 572 (Canon 35: falsity to court or client breaches duty of candor)
- In re Peña, Santiago, 185 DPR 764 (factors for selecting appropriate disciplinary sanction)