In the Matter of Roger S. Hanson, Esq., United States of America v. Russell Woolfolk

Respondent, Roger S. Hanson, was cited to appear before this court to show cause why he should not be disciplined, pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 46(c), for lack of diligence in representing appellant Russell Woolfolk. Respondent appeared before the court on June 1,1977 and was given the opportunity to explain his apparent failure to prosecute the appeal.

The court has reviewed the details of Mr. Hanson’s professional conduct in this case. Pursuant to the order of the magistrate, the record on appeal was to be filed no later than December 1,1976. The record was not filed by that date. Counsel sought no extension of time and did not advise the court of any difficulties that were encountered in preparing the record. The appellant’s opening brief was required by February 1,1977. Counsel failed to file that brief or to request an extension of time. By reason of respondent’s noncompliance with the rules, his client’s appeal was subject to possible dismissal.

These defaults might have been explained, or mitigated in part, by the appellant’s intention to discharge Mr. Hanson as his counsel, a decision that was communicated to Mr. Hanson as early as October 26, 1976. It appears, however, that…