2025 TSPR 87
P.R.2025Background
- Sharon M. Hernández López, admitted 2007 (notary 2008), previously suspended three months in 2017 for ethical violations; reinstated after CLE compliance.
- Two complaints (AB-2018-0239 by María Meléndez Matos; AB-2018-0275 by Julio Guzmán Pintor) alleged: failure to communicate, negligent or non‑performance of legal work, retention of files, refusal to return fees, and practicing while suspended.
- OPG investigated and recommended disciplinary proceedings: counts charging violations of Canons 9, 18, 19, 20, 33, 35 and 38 of the Code of Professional Ethics (various charges across the two complaints).
- Special Commissioner held hearings, found clear and convincing evidence that Hernández López delegated work without informing clients, failed to follow up on court orders, did not notify clients or courts of her suspension, retained files, and provided legal advice while suspended.
- Hernández López argued she delegated work in good faith, trusted co‑counsel, returned some fees, was remorseful, has good community reputation, is sole family provider and currently employed in Texas; denied intentional misconduct.
- Supreme Court agreed with the Commissioner, found repeated, non‑isolated ethical breaches, imposed immediate and indefinite suspension, ordered return of files and unearned fees, required client and court notifications, and referred possible criminal violation of Law No. 17 to the Department of Justice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty of diligence and competence (Canon 18) | Hernández failed to prosecute clients' matters, causing dismissal and prejudice. | Delegated to other attorneys; trusted their diligence; any delay was unintentional. | Court: Violations of Canon 18; delegation did not excuse lack of follow‑up and resulted in prejudice. |
| Duty to inform clients (Canon 19) | Hernández did not notify clients of case status, delegation, or her suspension. | Claimed clients were informed; co‑counsel handled matters. | Court: Violations of Canon 19; obligation to keep clients informed is nondelegable. |
| Renunciation, return of files and fees (Canon 20) | Hernández retained files, conditioned returns on payment, and failed to return unearned fees promptly. | Claimed logistical/cost burdens and outstanding fees justified delay; returned some funds. | Court: Violations of Canon 20; must promptly deliver files and refund unearned fees on request. |
| Practice while suspended / obedience to Court orders (Canons 9, 33, 35, 38; Law No. 17) | Hernández continued legal activity and invoiced clients while suspended and disobeyed Supreme Court orders. | Denied practicing during suspension; asserted co‑counsel’s involvement and that notices were filed. | Court: Violations of Canons 9, 33, 35 and 38; conduct evidenced appearance/practice while suspended and disregard for Court orders; referred possible statutory violation to DOJ. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Gervitz Carbonell, 162 DPR 665 (on illegal practice outside authorized venues)
- In re Gordon Menéndez I, 171 DPR 210 (appearance/practice during suspension improper)
- In re García Incera, 201 DPR 1043 (negligent conduct causing dismissal violates Canon 18)
- In re Rivera Contreras, 202 DPR 73 (obligation to return client file and unearned fees promptly)
- In re Ocasio Bravo, 209 DPR 1043 (disregard of court orders supports suspension)
- In re Cardona Álvarez, 204 DPR 409 (duty of continuous client communication under Canon 19)