Carter v. Baccari

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Carter v. Baccari

384 A.2d 1073, 120 R.I. 977, 1978 R.I. LEXIS 864

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedApril 14, 1978

DocketM. P. No. 78-119

StatusPublished

This text of 384 A.2d 1073 (Carter v. Baccari) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carter v. Baccari, 384 A.2d 1073, 120 R.I. 977, 1978 R.I. LEXIS 864 (R.I. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

The respondent is a member of the Bar of this state. On Friday, April 7, 1978, he appeared before us in response to our order to show cause why he should not be disciplined for his failure to respond to a complaint filed by a client with this Court’s Disciplinary Board pursuant to the pertinent provisions of our Rule 42. The respondent appeared and acknowledged that he had not filed any response to the complaint despite numerous requests by the Board’s counsel to do so. Failure to comply with the reasonable requests of either the Board or its counsel is a ground for discipline under our Rule 42-2.

The expeditious disposition of complaints filed against attorneys is the goal of this Court. An attorney’s disregard of the requests made by the Board or its counsel pursuant to our disciplinary rules cannot go unpunished.

Accordingly, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that Vincent J. Baccari is hereby reprimanded for indulging in the practices described herein, and he is to forthwith file a [978]*978response in which he will set out the facts that will assist the counsel and the Board in discharging their duties under the rules. Failure on the respondent’s part to file the report will result in an order being entered, without any further notice, indefinitely suspending him from the practice of law.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The respondent is a member of the Bar of this state. On Friday, April 7, 1978, he appeared before us in response to our order to show cause why he should not be disciplined for his failure to respond to a complaint filed by a client with this Court’s Disciplinary Board pursuant to the pertinent provisions of our Rule 42. The respondent appeared and acknowledged that he had not filed any response to the complaint despite numerous requests by the Board’s counsel to do so. Failure to comply with the reasonable requests of either the Board or its counsel is a ground for discipline under our Rule 42-2.

The expeditious disposition of complaints filed against attorneys is the goal of this Court. An attorney’s disregard of the requests made by the Board or its counsel pursuant to our disciplinary rules cannot go unpunished.

Accordingly, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that Vincent J. Baccari is hereby reprimanded for indulging in the practices described herein, and he is to forthwith file a [978]*978response in which he will set out the facts that will assist the counsel and the Board in discharging their duties under the rules. Failure on the respondent’s part to file the report will result in an order being entered, without any further notice, indefinitely suspending him from the practice of law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

384 A.2d 1073, 120 R.I. 977, 1978 R.I. LEXIS 864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-v-baccari-ri-1978.